You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Africa: Horn
U.S. in conflict with Europeans on Darfur war crimes trials
2005-01-22
The United States is rejecting European proposals urging that the International Criminal Court prosecute Sudanese responsible for war crimes in the Darfur region of that country. Instead, the administration is pushing for a tribunal run by Africans, perhaps making use of the facility in Tanzania where trials growing out of the Rwanda genocide are taking place, a senior official said. The official, asking not to be identified, also said a U.N. commission examining the Darfur situation is not expected to classify the humanitarian crisis there as genocide. The commission likely will use language such as "grievous war crimes" or similar wording to describe the nearly two-year campaign by government-backed Arab militias against black African farmers in Darfur. In September, Secretary of State Colin Powell concluded that the abuses in Darfur constituted genocide. His finding was based on interviews by U.S. diplomats with hundreds of Darfur residents who have been uprooted from their homes. The Bush administration is eager for perpetrators of the abuses to be tried by a war crimes tribunal but strongly opposes the ICC as the venue.
Posted by:Fred

#26  Mike the problem is the ICC and like minded supporters reliance on the "Then a miracle occurs" step to world problems. The model that Europe is so enamored with can be listed as:
1. Genocide is occurring.
2. Then a miracle occurs.
3. The bad guys are before the ICC for 10 years.

The only problem is that the ICC crowd have no idea that step 2 involves miltary force to kill or root out those responsible. In reality, enforcement is the most critical. In the examples you cited, the Nazi's were invaded and killed or captured. The KKK was infiltrated and the members arrested. Milosevic and Serbia were bombed to an early industrial stage. Without these actions, all three would still be going strong and, I dare say, would have taken over those who did not violently fight back.

Europe will again have to learn that without enforcement, actions of groups like the ICC are just an advertisement of their weakness that people like the Nazis and Islamists will take advantage of.
Posted by: ed   2005-01-23 12:19:53 AM  

#25  
Re: #24 (ed)

as long as they are indicting "grievous war crimes" in Sudan, why not work chronologically and start with the 2 million Christians and Animists killed the past 30 years in Southern Sudan. Or are they worth less than the black muslims of Darfur?

We live in a world of difficult problems. Sometimes we let some problems pass and address subsequent problems.

It's easy to blame the people who eventually do address problems for the past problems that were not addressed. It's easy for you, and it's easy for me. Everyone will highly appreciate our abilities to point out the problems in the past that should have been addressed earlier and our abilities to point out the problems of the present that are being addressed slowly and with great difficulty.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester   2005-01-22 11:54:20 PM  

#24  I couldn't agree with you moore Mike. The proper US course would have been to deeply regret the warlike British, and ask the League of Nations Criminal Court to indict Hitler & Co. William Jennings Bryant would surely have torn Hitler and Mussolini new assholes. A lot of American blood and treasure would not have been spilled on the fields of Europe, and would have been the morally superior thing to do. After all what did Hitler and the Germans ever do to us? At least the Germans had Mercedes to sell, and we had plenty oil to sell. What did the Brits have?

The ICC and African tribunal can indict away. As long as the murderous gang in Khartoum incite, organize, and protect genocide, sorry, "grievous war crimes", the ICC would get more satifaction pissing up a rope. And as long as they are indicting "grievous war crimes" in Sudan, why not work chronologically and start with the 2 million Christians and Animists killed the past 30 years in Southern Sudan. Or are they worth less than the black muslims of Darfur?
Posted by: ed   2005-01-22 11:30:44 PM  

#23  
OK. Let the personal attacks against me begin.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester   2005-01-22 10:48:04 PM  

#22  
The other day, a US court indicted a Ku Klux Klan member for a crime that was committed about 40 years ago. He had been indicted and tried before, and that trial ended in a hung jury for him, because one juror "refused to convict a preacher." So, why have we waited 40 years for the second trial? Because sometimes the millstones of justice grind slow, but exceedingly fine.

Germany's prosecutions of Nazis and concentration camp guards lasted for into the 1970s. The US Department of Justice is still prosecuting and deporting former Nazi collaborators who immigrated to the USA fraudulently more than 50 years ago.

The Nuremberg trials ended in 1949, four years after World War Two ended. The number of people who were tried was ...... 21.

This trial was followed by other trials, that extended over many years after that. These trials were conducted by the US and its Allied occupants. Relatively few people were convicted. Most of the sentences eventually were reduced to a few years of imprisonment. Many of the convicts were released immediately for time served. The sentences were reduced by decisions of the US occupation authorities.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester   2005-01-22 10:47:18 PM  

#21  Legal approach: Ten years and still counting, with no end in sight-- as Aris puts it, "the ICC has its hands full trying to prove the unproveable."

Agressive military approach: had this been applied in the early 'nineties, Milosevic would have been killed and the deaths of tens of thousands averted.

The ICC is worse than ineffectual. To the extent it replaces military action, reliance on the ICC to do the hard work of ending genocide will only abet such actions. It's bad medicine of the sort that makes righteous westerners feel good while doing nothing whatsoever to deter genocidal killers who have nothing but contempt for western norms and legal proceedings.
Posted by: lex   2005-01-22 10:22:51 PM  

#20  
Re #10 (Trailing Wife):

The ICC has taken 10 years to handle a small number of Serbian atrocity trials, where the evidence is beyond question.

So, how many years has the Tanzanian tribunal spent prosecuting the Rwanda crimes? The question I asked is, why is the Bush administration condemning the one and pushing the other? I don't think you answered my questions.

These crimes are difficult to prosecute legally. The tribunals are proving not merely that there were atrocities. The tribunals are proving that specific persons committed specific acts that constitute specific crimes. Legal evidence has to be assembled and then presented.

The efforts of these international tribunals are complicated by problems of distance, language, law, and so forth. You sure are critical of the efforts of other people to solve difficult problems, Trailing Wife.

It charged Ariel Sharon ....

I assume you're talking about the fence. Remind me, because I honestly don't remember: Did the ICC find fault with the the fence itself, or with the fact that the fence encroached across a line?

It showed eager interest in trying British soldiers and member of the British government with war crimes for partaking in the invasion of Iraq.

I don't know anything about that. Did the ICC indict British soldiers for partaking in the invasion of Iraq?
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester   2005-01-22 10:14:56 PM  

#19  Annie, you are off-topic. Before you, only .com, mentioned the EU in this thread, not I.

As a sidenote, do you know what one of the first actions of the democrats in Ukraine (led by Yushchenko), were after they got into power? Seeking to speed up the process for eventual EU membership.

I'm sure that's just another case of utter coincidence, and it doesn't imply anything about whether freedom-loving people just outside the EU borders are seeing it as a beacon of hope.

trailing wife> If the African courts are doing the jobs better, jolly good: that's the kind of argument that's good to hear. If you have any links or references where I could find more information on that subject, I'd truly appreciate it.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-01-22 9:27:50 PM  

#18  you're still a twit, with your nose so high in the air, too bad it doesn't work though, I don't see how you could miss each and every brand new, fresh, steaming heap the precious EU keeps piling up so high
Posted by: Annie War   2005-01-22 9:11:34 PM  

#17  What Annie War wrote, I couldn't possibly, no matter how I tried. That is serious invective.

Aris, you may be right about the Belgian court vs. the ICC wrt Sharon, et al. I'm a bit fuzzy headed today -- two parties last night, when I'm accustomed to one every few months. (Yes, we are old poops, Mr. Wife and I. Oh, well. And no, it was club soda for me all evening, and the car keys to drive home with. I got the hangover without the alcohol or the drunk, darn it!) On the other hand, if the officers of the ICC chose to try the unprovable, the more fools they. And the worse an idea it appears to me to turn over more cases to them, when they are out of their depth with what they've already taken on. The African courts have been handling its cases expeditiously, and proving the provable. A much better choice for pragmatic reasons as well as ideological.
Posted by: trailing wife   2005-01-22 9:06:35 PM  

#16  Excellents points, all of them. I especially liked the maniacal laughter at the end.

Seeing a good maniacal laughter is so rare nowadays.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-01-22 8:59:20 PM  

#15  Aris, admit it, you and yer Jacques chiracs, yer Yoska Fischers, and yer de Vile Pans must love Prsident Bush; because, as an Iron Curtain of tyranny descends over your hopeless continent, you don't lift a finger, instead you're all jumping up and down and squealling over some chariqature of the form of a duly elected American President. You miserable sheep! You've really done it to yourselves this time. You euro trash are sooo superior, and your elites know sooo well what is good for all you miserable prols, and you give them every indication that you must indeed be led around by the nose, sqealling praise for your messianic, untouchable, unaccountable, ( the EU, for the 9th year running, can account for only 1/10th of its budget) captors as you load first others, then finally you load yourselves onto the cattle cars bound for the next Auschwitz, the next Buchenwald, the next Dachau... squelling " thank you sir, may I have another!"
you're crass indubitable, innimitable, persistent snobbery will burn you all alive, this time, if your new pet victims, the islamonazis don't do it first. Pseudo-upperclass twit wanabees, the lot of you! And don't forget, there is no smoking permitted, because if you do, well, you'll be in a lot, I mean ALOT of trouble, and you'll only make things worse for yourself, not to mention your credit rating! BWAHAHAHAH! Burn in hell! or wait, burn here first! Ah HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Posted by: Annie War   2005-01-22 8:44:21 PM  

#14  ignore
Posted by: Tom   2005-01-22 8:40:32 PM  

#13  Btw, regarding Milosevic and "subordinates", the other problem ofcourse was that they were never officially subordinates to *him*, they were the boys of Karadjic and Mladic. *Them* they might be able to convict if they ever manage to catch.

Milosevic is rather trickier: It'd be like convicting Putin of the crimes that Yanukovych commited. Sure, *morally* responsible, but rather hard to prove in a court of law.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-01-22 8:07:08 PM  

#12  Ptah> "And Aris expects us to imbibe of the hair of the dog that bit us?"

I never said that I expect USA to support the ICC. I don't expect such a thing to happen.

I do however expect people to stop calling "Eurabian" a bloc that among about 100 countries, almost all of them democracies, from all over the world, contains only one Arab country.

I do expect them to stop making nice little jabs that are utter lies through-and-through. I'm hopelessly optimistic in the sense that I expect Rantburgers to *eventually* become interested in facts.

trailing wife> "The ICC has taken 10 years to handle a small number of Serbian atrocity trials, where the evidence is beyond question"

They are attempting to convict Milosevic of genocide, because genocide was a nice cool word for a person they tried to present as the next worst thing since Hitler. Ofcourse Milosevic was merely a minor regional imperialist and tinpot dictator, who didn't seem to care particularly about genocide one way or another -- genocidal actions were tactical decisions of subordinates, not a policy that he ever bothered to order from the top.

So the ICC has its hands full trying to prove the unproveable. Not convicting Milosevic of genocide would be a failure in the eyes of the West, convicting him would be a discrediting of the court in a more fundamental sense.

So they're stuck.

As for charging Ariel Sharon, are you sure about that? I've never heard anything like that, nor does it seem possible to me, according to the little I've read about the ICC's function. Do you have a reference?

Are you perhaps confusing it with what a Belgian court tried to do?
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-01-22 8:03:01 PM  

#11  Or what Ptah said. :-)
Posted by: trailing wife   2005-01-22 7:11:55 PM  

#10  Mike, why would Bush sanction the use of an organization which has already demonstrated deliberate imbalance in seeking justice? The ICC has taken 10 years to handle a small number of Serbian atrocity trials, where the evidence is beyond question. It charged Ariel Sharon and other members of the Israeli government (current and former) and armed forces with war crimes based on acknowledged false evidence, making them liable to arrest should they travel to or through any of the countries which are signatory to the ICC -- or which wish to curry favour with those that are. It refuses even yet to charge various Palestinians with crimes for which there is ample evidence. It showed eager interest in trying British soldiers and member of the British government with war crimes for partaking in the invasion of Iraq.

The ICC, much like the U.N., is a lovely idea fatally and dangerously flawed in its execution. In my humble opinion, of course.
Posted by: trailing wife   2005-01-22 7:07:02 PM  

#9  *yawn* Republicans in the United States know first hand a court run amuck while under the cover of "legal" jargon. And Aris expects us to imbibe of the hair of the dog that bit us?
Posted by: Ptah   2005-01-22 7:06:02 PM  

#8  ROFLMAO!!!

I guess I am that predictable, lol! I have been clacking out a reply, of course...

Okay, you're wise, level-headed, and smarter than the average bear, Mrs D, not to mention an ace.

Keyboard down - and Peace to the intelligent life on RB. ;-)
Posted by: .com   2005-01-22 5:09:19 PM  

#7  .com, don't do it. Put they keyboard down and move away from the monitor before you go to 156/104. Just do it. It's for your own good.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2005-01-22 5:04:30 PM  

#6  
I don't understand why the Bush administration would strongly oppose the ICC as a venue but support a tribunal in Tanzania? Why is one better than the other? What's the principle that is being asserted?

I know that the USA refuses to join the ICC. Why, though, does the USA object to other countries using that institution? If the USA opposes international tribunals on some principle, then why does it support an African international tribunal in this case?
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester   2005-01-22 4:53:05 PM  

#5  Oh, no, I'm *sure* it's all coincidence. Absolutely utterly sure.

Still: for a Eurabian bloc, it seems to be sorely lacking any Arab members. And to be in extremly short supply of dictatorships and tyrannical regimes. Those tend to be gathered on the *other* side.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-01-22 4:51:54 PM  

#4  Aris, stop with the strawman thingy - there's a strawman gap already and you're just making it worse.

...the super ethical American-Chinese-Russian-Arab bloc that refuses to support the ICC.

Guilt by Association? Fuck off.
Posted by: .com   2005-01-22 4:44:28 PM  

#3  "issues are common tenets of law, common history of precendence, common agreement on procedural and evidenciary rules, common appeals processes, simple competence, and the mythical universal legitimacy. The ICC? Lol, it has none of these."

And this African equivalent of the International Criminal Court will have them? If so, the article doesn't make it clear how.

"Only ICC is backed by the super ethical Eurabian block!!!"

States parties: http://www.icc-cpi.int/asp/statesparties.html

African states that have acceded: http://www.icc-cpi.int/php/show.php?page=region&id=3

Asian states that have acceded: http://www.icc-cpi.int/php/show.php?page=region&id=4

Seeing at the countries listed, the only Arab state there seems to me to be Jordan.

But as I've said, never any need for facts.

It seems to me that it's the super ethical American-Chinese-Russian-Arab bloc that refuses to support the ICC. Check out the list of member states yourself.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-01-22 4:39:07 PM  

#2  No. NO. NO!!! ICC is the only corrent venue for trying crimes of against humanity!!! Only ICC is backed by the super ethical Eurabian block!!!
Posted by: gromgorru   2005-01-22 8:20:23 AM  

#1  Conflict? No conflict - the issues are common tenets of law, common history of precendence, common agreement on procedural and evidenciary rules, common appeals processes, simple competence, and the mythical universal legitimacy. The ICC? Lol, it has none of these. Just another EU joke, an absurd usurpation and encroachment of wank-o-matic bureaucrats and poltical schemers. Let them stay on vacation, it's what they do best.
Posted by: .com   2005-01-22 2:20:55 AM  

00:00