Sudan Leader Charged With Genocide

[lisab]

Wow -

The chief prosecutor of the Internationals Criminal Court will seek an arrest warrant Monday for Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, charging him with genocide and crimes against humanity in the orchestration of a campaign of violence that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians in the nation's Darfur region during the past five years, according to U.N. officials and diplomats.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25632013/

Does anyone know how difficult it is to get a warrant in this court? How high is the legal bar that the prosecutor has to meet?

I had heard that members of the World Food Program were recently attacked in Sudan. Is that what it finally took to get this issue front and center at the UN? Well, I'm so glad they are doing something - finally.

 

[WarPhalange]

I don't care how hard it is to get a warrant for the court. I want to know what having a warrant means. Will we actually be able to just storm in and arrest him? Or will it be "Hey, can you please give up? We'd like to arrest you please."

 

[Art]

It doesn't mean a lot really. There are already 2 warrants outstanding against Sudanese citizens which have yet to be acted on.

The US are vehemently opposed to this court to the extent they have banned military aid (Hague Invasion Act) to any country which ratified the treaty which set it up and so without their active support it is hard to see how this case will go anywhere or the court itself for that matter.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

It doesn't mean a lot really. There are already 2 warrants outstanding against Sudanese citizens which have yet to be acted on.

The US are vehemently opposed to this court to the extent they have banned military aid (Hague Invasion Act) to any country which ratified the treaty which set it up and so without their active support it is hard to see how this case will go anywhere or the court itself for that matter.

If Bush wanted to go after this jerk, he would do so with or without the court. On the other hand, if the warrant is issued and US doesn't enforce it, then it should be interesting to see who does.

 

[WarPhalange]

It's funny that we went after the guys who *might* have had weapons of mass destruction, but aren't even touching the guys who already did create mass destruction.

 

[Astronuc]

There's not much in the way of enforcement, and so there is not much that can be done, unless the UN sends forces to arrest the guy. In theory, he would be arrested if he left Sudan, but it is unlikely countries with sympathetic governments would do so.

 

[devil-fire]

From what I understand of the ICC is they have no capacity to arrest anyone at all outside the Netherlands. Meaning they have no control over any armed forces what so ever, UN, NATO, AU or even the Netherlands military. I think the only people brought to trial so far have been delivered by the country of origin.

So if there is a big coup in Sudan and the new government wants to make a mends, they might arrest these people and put them on a flight to the Hague. Until that happens, these guys don't have much to worry about. A warrant from the ICC is like something they Might have to worry about If things go bad for them.

Until the USA ratifies, which might not happen for another 30, 50, 100 years if ever, I think these guys would be safe from being sent to trial in the ICC even if they were living in the USA. They wouldn't be able to get a visa of course and the USA might deport them to somewhere in the African Union, or maybe even run a trial themselves, but they wouldn't be sent directly from the USA to the ICC by the Americans.

 

[nabki]

well this is silly. the only thing he is doing is giving al-bashir (someone who i think has done a lot of bad things...) the backing of the whole arab world, that up until that point actually opposed most of his policies. a bit like the iraq war really.

 

[LowlyPion]

It's funny that we went after the guys who *might* have had weapons of mass destruction, but aren't even touching the guys who already did create mass destruction.

Maybe if Sudan had the kind of strategic energy reserves the US and other nations are thirsty for world outrage would favor them with solutions that would help the people there?

Unfortunately though Sudan is population rich and resource poor - a difficult cocktail as the world grapples with overpopulation. (That's not to say that something shouldn't be done, just cynicism that sadly little will likely happen there but more misery.)

 

[Gokul43201]

Unfortunately, the one thing that an ICC warrant seems to do is convince the recipient that he needs to stay in power for as long as he's alive.

 

[LowlyPion]

Unfortunately, the one thing that an ICC warrant seems to do is convince the recipient that he needs to stay in power for as long as he's alive.

Maybe a better course is to get organized crime mad at him?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Charges were filed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25671505"

 

[quadraphonics]

Maybe if Sudan had the kind of strategic energy reserves the US and other nations are thirsty for world outrage would favor them with solutions that would help the people there?

They do have exactly those resources. Sudan is estimated to have 5 Billion barrels of oil reserves, and is Africa's third-largest petroleum producer. In fact, this is one of the main reasons that world outrage never adds up to concrete action on Sudan: they sign sweetheart deals with China to exchange oil for political cover. Any UN resolution that gets tough with them will be vetoed in the name of "non-interference in internal affairs of states." If they *didn't* have oil, there might be a chance of intervention.

 

[vociferous]

It doesn't mean a lot really. There are already 2 warrants outstanding against Sudanese citizens which have yet to be acted on.

The US are vehemently opposed to this court to the extent they have banned military aid (Hague Invasion Act) to any country which ratified the treaty which set it up and so without their active support it is hard to see how this case will go anywhere or the court itself for that matter.

I do not believe this characterization is accurate. The main intention of the court is to provide a measure of justice in non-democratic nations that do not follow the laws of war or uphold basic human rights for their citizens.

The fear among US leaders (and those of many other Democratic nations that follow the laws of war) is that the court will be used for political persecution of their citizens, which I believe is justified to some degree.

The issue is not so much with the court itself, but rather diminished sovereignty and political persecution in countries like the United States, France, the UK, et cetera; countries which have a history of protecting their citizens' human rights and following the Geneva and Hague Protocols.

The US has been willing to support the court, so long as it does not have jurisdiction over US citizens.

 

[arildno]

The genocide in Darfur is that of an unleashed Islamic jihad on Christian ans animist populations. Mr. Idries is to be a crown witness, according to Sydney Morning Herald:

Darfur defector confesses
Email Printer friendly version Normal font Large font Nick Meo in London
July 14, 2008

Other related coverage
Warrant for Sudan's president over Dafur war crimes
Advertisement
A HIGH-RANKING commander who armed and led Janjaweed militiamen in attacks on hundreds of villages in Darfur has come forward to say he did so at the behest of the Sudanese Government.

Prosecutors at the International Criminal Court are today expected to take a significant step towards putting Sudan's leaders on trial by presenting evidence against the President, Omar Hassan al-Bashir.

As the lawyers pursue a case against the country's rulers in Khartoum, some of the most damning evidence yet that the killing was directed by the Government has been provided by Arbab Idries, who was a commander between 2003 and 2007.

An estimated 300,000 black Africans have died in ethnic massacres in Darfur at the hands of Arabic-speaking militias, in what the US has described as genocide. A further 2.5 million refugees have been driven from their homes.

In an interview to be aired on British television tonight, Mr Idries described how he was instructed by a senior government figure to recruit Islamic Arabic speakers from the north of Sudan, then personally led 5000 horsemen in a murderous campaign against black southerners who did not share their religion.

He admitted troops under his command committed rapes and killed old people and children. "We were attacking villages where there were only the blacks," Mr Idries said. "These people were civilians. They had no weapons."

The Khartoum Government has always argued that the massacres were the result of tribal disputes in a remote area in which it had no hand. But the detailed account Mr Idries can provide about the campaign of slaughter could prove crucial as a case is built against Sudan's rulers. After falling out with the regime he fled abroad and is now in hiding and trying to strike a deal with international prosecutors.

He said he had become repelled by the slaughter but it is more likely he feared falling victim to political manoeuvrings within the regime. Reports from Khartoum suggest that senior figures in the regime are increasingly fearful that international pressure to pursue war crime suspects will soon force them to offer up scapegoats.

As the expected announcement by the court approaches, Sudan's Government has become increasingly angry. Its spokesman at the UN said any charges brought against the President would be "a criminal move". Westerners in Khartoum are taking extra security precautions as fears of revenge attacks grow.

Mr Idries's account is both chilling and convincing in its detailed description of a campaign by ferocious horsemen who despised the Darfuris as racial inferiors. It also outlines a clearly thought-out campaign of ethnic cleansing.

He said: "When we entered a village we were to steal and loot whatever we could. As for the water wells, we put sand in and blocked them. We cut down trees and burnt villages. We wanted to force the population out of their areas and give them no chance to live there again."

Telegraph, London

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/07/13/1215887451622.html



Note how the leading article misdirects attention by "ethnicizing" the conflict, rather than report the direct Islamic linkage Mr. Idries provides.

 

[kyleb]

Where is the "direct Islamic linkage Mr. Idries provides"?

 

[nabki]

it is ethnic, in my oppinion. i denounce such disgusting acts commited by the sudaneese government, although raising charges will probably only make things worse. i mean, to take a look at the tv now, about 10 headlines on the al-jazeera news ticker are about the current situation in sudan, such as how the gulf cooperation council supports al-bashir in the current crisis. i can already see thing escelating, for no reason at all.

 

[arildno]

Where is the "direct Islamic linkage Mr. Idries provides"?

In an interview to be aired on British television tonight, Mr Idries described how he was instructed by a senior government figure to recruit Islamic Arabic speakers from the north of Sudan, then personally led 5000 horsemen in a murderous campaign against black southerners who did not share their religion.

You might have read the article before you posted.