NYT/Reuters: War Crimes Court to Start Investigation in Darfur

War Crimes Court to Start Investigation in Darfur
By REUTERS
Published: June 6, 2005
Filed at 9:00 a.m. ET


AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - The International Criminal Court launched a formal investigation on Monday into suspected war crimes in Sudan's Darfur region, where tens of thousands of people have died since a rebel uprising began in early 2003.

"The investigation will be impartial and independent, focusing on the individuals who bear the greatest criminal responsibility for crimes committed in Darfur,'' the ICC said in a statement, but did not name any suspects.

The U.N. Security Council voted in March to refer the situation in Darfur to the ICC, the world's first permanent global criminal court established in 2002 to try cases of genocide and major human rights violations.

The referral, the first to the ICC by the Security Council, was made possible when Washington, which opposes the court, abstained from the vote after winning guarantees that its citizens in Sudan would be exempt from prosecution by the court.

The Darfur conflict broke out in February 2003 when rebels took up arms against the Arab-dominated government, accusing Khartoum of discrimination against non-Arabs in the arid region....


http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-warcrimes-darfur.html

Now I know why Darfur was allowed to happen... kinda takes the spotlight off all the war crimes, excesses, and atrocities committed by Bush and co.

Sue

they do not fall under it. Simple eh?

Many others things USA refuses to sign (Kyoto) because they say it undermines the democracy..... like smoke and mirrors to make red state Americans believe in fantasies doesn't weaken the democracy.

The designers of the Rome Statute were not so foolish or naive as to think any tyrant who thinks he is above the law was going to give the international community permission to subject him to justice. In the 1990s, however, their idea of such a tyrant was a tin horned dictator like Saddam; they might not have thought that such a tyrant would ever occupy the White House.

A case may be referred to the court by the Security Council (not likely in a case involving the US), through another member state or by the initiative of a prosecutor. See Articles 13 through 15. Actually, there is no case involving serious human rights violations the ICC cannot hear.

Another possibility, although not explicit in the Rome Statute, would be to do an end run around the Security Council, where any action is subject to a US veto, and take the case to the General Assembly. This would be a route similar to the one taken to approve UN involvement in Korea in 1950.

A more serious impediment to prosecuting Bush and his neoconservative aides for war crimes under the Rome Statute is that the crime of aggression was left to be defined as a later date (see Article 5, paragraph 2). One would imagine that the charges against Bush and company would be waging a war of aggression which was not justified by self-defense, as a humanitarian intervention or by any UNSC resolution which specifically authorized the use of force against Iraq. If it appears that the Rome Statute in its present form can't cover that, then it might be better to convene a special tribunal for war crimes in Iraq along the lines of the tribunals currently operating for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

do what they have done in Darfur and say - the world governance cannot study anything we have done. Not because they simply didn't sign but because they refuse to enforce the laws. And they sit in the SC. And they always hedge policy away from the ICC. I read a transcript on DArfur put out by the Brookings institute. And all over the place it was the American position saying " the ICC cannot do this - someone else has to - the issue of Darfur has to be taken up by local human rights tribunals. ICC is too busy in the Hague". And around and around the debate on what should be done about Darfur is mostly about how the USA thinks the ICC is a bad idea. And basically if you want to do an investigation using the ICC and if you want CIA or American satellite help in the investigation - you have to play by our rules. Or we will not give you that information.
And USA plans on using foreign aid like a stick. "Do this & do that or we will not give you any American foreign aid". Kenya just told them to go to hell.

So it is simple in that because ICC is not USA law - they can say this is against the law and we can fight this in so many ways because it is illegal. And we can hold back intelligence (which they have a monopoly on in some cases) and foreign aid and enforcement and cooperation from a host of agencies.

It is ironic that Bush told the UN that if they did not act in regards to Iraq, it would be irrelevant. I agree with him, but not in the way he intends it.

It was obvious from the start that Bush and the neoconservative thugs around him were not going to be denied their war. Going to the UN was intended as diplomatic cover, nothing else. This was laid bare when:

• The Bush regime attempted to discredit weapons inspectors once Saddam allowed them back into Iraq. If the inspectors found something, well and good; otherwise, the regime could not allow any one to think that the reason the inspectors found nothing is because there was nothing to find.
• Bush and the neoconservatives knew very well that "the case (for war) was thin" (to quote the Downing Street document), which is why "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" (ibid.) The policy was war; what this sentence plainly means is that members of the Bush regime were resolved to fabricate and dissemble to build a case for war. This was the mission of the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon; moreover, it was known long before the first missiles flew over Baghdad that the regime was politicizing intelligence. Furthermore, almost every fact cited by members of the Bush regime or Mr. Blair's government to support the assertion that Saddam had a vast biochemical arsenal was debunked prior to the invasion.
• An Anglo-Spanish resolution which would have authorized force against Iraq was introduced to the UN Security Council, but it failed to pass. With one argument supporting the case for war after another debunked and weapons inspectors turning up nothing of significance, the case for war simply had not been proved; the resolution faced certain defeat and was withdrawn before a vote that would have proved embarrassing to Mr. Bush and his friends could be taken. Nevertheless, Bush ordered the attack on his own authority. Effectively, Mr. Bush usurped the right of a body of the United Nations to determine when UN resolutions were being violated and when he could enforce them.

The invasion of Iraq was a gross violation of the UN Charter. It can't be any stretch of the imagination be considered an act of self-defense and the Security Council did not pass a resolution authorizing force.

About this the UN has done nothing. Indeed, it has waved a white flag and passed resolutions legitimizing the Bush regime's colonial occupation of Iraq. That's worse than irrelevant. It is cowardly. Bush has gotten away with war crimes and crimes against humanity so far because no one has seriously tried to stop him.

The proper action to take in the face of the willful disregard of the UN Charter by the Bush regime, which resulted in the loss of Iraq's sovereignty, would have been to impose sanctions and convene a tribunal. In light of the ongoing outrages of the Bush regime and the clear evidence of deliberate lying and dissembling to falsely justify action, it should not be thought too late to resolve to bring these criminals to justice. Only in that way can the UN regain the relevance it has lost in this unfortunate period of history.

prevail, the crimes must be defined before they occur. Otherwise, people will be subject to ex post facto legislation. This may well come back to haunt those who thought they were doing such a great thing.

The other thing about war crimes is, first you have to win the war and capture the criminals. If, say Belgium, or some other 4th-rate power, or even the ICC, attempts to capture and try American officials, well I'm pretty sure they will find out what the Marines were intended for, originally.

Perhaps it would have been better to try the Nazis under German laws against murder.

You'll notice that the Allies did not try the Germans for any type of actions, criminal under international law at the time, of which they were also guilty. Bombings of civilian areas, for instance. Gives the whole thing a stink of victor's justice, although there is no doubt the Nazis deserved all they got. Oh, well, as the Romans used to say vae victis, "woe to the vanquished".

Which brings me back to my point: the United States has not been defeated in war, and no foreign country is going to risk war with the United States by trying to capture and try their leaders. That's for little tin-pot dictators.

Frankly, though, I don't know why they don't try for some of the old Communist dictators who sucked the blood of their people for so long. They ought to be accessible, if anybody cared about Communist crimes. And, there's nothing ex post facto about their crimes.

Perhaps it would have been better to try the Nazis under German laws against murder.

Everything the Nazis did was legal under German law at the time. As Hess proclaimed, "The law and the will of der Fuhrer are one." Trying the Nazis under German law would have legitimized the defense of following orders.

If all that was required was victors' justice, then the Nuremberg trials were entirely unnecessary. The world could have just taken Stalin's advice and shot the bastards without much fanfare.

You'll notice that the Allies did not try the Germans for any type of actions, criminal under international law at the time, of which they were also guilty. Bombings of civilian areas, for instance. Gives the whole thing a stink of victor's justice, although there is no doubt the Nazis deserved all they got. Oh, well, as the Romans used to say vae victis, "woe to the vanquished".

Which brings me back to my point: the United States has not been defeated in war, and no foreign country is going to risk war with the United States by trying to capture and try their leaders. That's for little tin-pot dictators.

So why go through the motions? The purpose was, in fact, to establish a body of law that would hold national leaders accountable for what they do with their armies. You would discard that rule because Bush is something more than a tin-pot dictator. So was Hitler in his time. I still maintain that Bush and the neoconservatives occupy the same niche today that Hitler and the Nazis occupied several decades back and that to give Bush a wink and a nod over Iraq and his network of gulags is tantamount to a policy of appeasement.

Frankly, though, I don't know why they don't try for some of the old Communist dictators who sucked the blood of their people for so long. They ought to be accessible, if anybody cared about Communist crimes. And, there's nothing ex post facto about their crimes.

In many former Communist states, that little matter is being disposed of very nicely. This is especially true in Romania, where Ceausescu was put to death after his downfall, and East Germany, where Honecker was brought to trial in 1993. Honecker's trial was halted due to his ill health; he died the following year.

That brings up the one point which I am willing to concede to you: it would be better for Bush and members of his regime to be tried in US federal court under the 1996 war crimes act. Unfortunately, not only is Attorney General Gonzales unlikely to investigate his boss for war crimes and crimes against humanity, but Mr. Gonzales, as the author of the torture memos, is himself a proper target of such an investigation. The Rome Statute provides that the ICC will not become involved unless and until the suspects' national courts and prosecutors prove unwilling or unable to dispense justice in the matter. The question arises how much time should we give the regime to demonstrate that it is willing and able to prosecute itself? Frankly, I don't see the point of giving it any more time than it would take to convene an international tribunal and start issuing indictments.

Having conceded that point, I will simply add that the worst thing the world can do is let Bush and the neonservatives off the hook simply because they are so big and bad. They must be tried and punished to serve as an example to posterity that no one -- absolutely no one, no matter how powerful -- is above the law and standards of civilized behavior.

everything you said, it still isn't going to happen. Might as well keep up the pressure, though. We don't seem to have any better ideas.

Meet my hero . . .



Don Quixote by Pablo Picasso from a Brazilian website

I am also uncomfortable with the doctrine of universal jurisdiction. An international tribunal, with a clear mandate from the international community, is the proper forum to try war crimes. That would signal to members of the regime that that they are pariahs and will be treated as such. A coordinated effort to boycott US businesses and divest in those transnational corporations which have foot the bill for these monsters' rise to power are certainly in order. This, coupled with the treat of apprehension of named war criminal suspects should they travel beyond fortress America, will make doing business difficult and bring pressure to oust the regime.

While it would be wrong to suggest that Bush and the neoconservatives are as brutal as Hitler and the Nazis, they nevertheless occupy the same niche in today's world that the Nazi regime did sixty-five years ago. They are bloody tyrants bent on world domination in order to use the police power of the state to impose on all the world a rigid, undemocratic social hierarchy based on crackpot theories about the right of some supposedly superior people to rule over most of humanity.

It would be just as wrong today to allow these criminals to triumph as it would have been sixty years ago to allow the Nazis to triumph. The time for appeasement is over. If this regime is not challenged, defeated and its ideology discredited, it will plunge the world into darkness.

I think not. Might does make ability, however.

Now this is just an observation, not a justification or apology, things between which I notice many DU'ers cannot easily distinguish. But while other countries were boycotting us, and ruining their own economies in the process, and trying to nab the "war criminals", what do you suppose the USA will be doing? Co]operating to the fullest extent? There are a vast number of Americans who still do not believe that Bush has committed any war crimes, and further, even a Democratic president is going to be very reluctant to let US officials go before an international tribunal. Very bad precedent, which might come back and bite him in the ass. No, if anything is to be done, it will have to be done through the US justice system.

"The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the differenec between the lightening and a lightening bug."

I anticipated most of your argument.

No, I don't expect the USA Bush and the neocons to cooperate.

Perhaps Americans aren't convinced that Bush has committed any war crimes. Something dramatic is needed to spur the debate, something of which the Amnesty International report is only a precursor and something the all-too-compliant corporate media, which is owned by some of the same people who have foot the bill for Mr. Bush's rise to power, can't sweep under the rug.

The Darfur genocide is but one of several human rights cases they should invetigate.

The ICC tries individual human rights violators, as did the Nuremberg tribunal.

An example must be made, to demonstrate the body has some teeth: that example must be both obviously in the wrong, and weak enough to be successfully assailed. The Sudanese government fits the bill on both counts....

"Politics ain't bean-bag."

I agree that Darfur is a good precident to set the standards for the ICC.

Press release from Human Rights Watch
Dateline New York, Monday June 6

ICC Takes Key Step to Bring Justice to Darfur
Khartoum Should Cooperate With the International Criminal Court

The decision today by the International Criminal Court's prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, to start an investigation into atrocities in Darfur is a key step toward bringing justice for those crimes, Human Rights Watch said.

"The ICC prosecutor's decision to investigate mass slaughter and rape in Darfur will start the wheels of justice turning for the victims of these atrocities," said Richard Dicker, director of Human Rights Watch's International Justice Program. "As a U.N. member state, Sudan is obligated to cooperate with the ICC investigation."

On March 31, the United Nations Security Council voted to refer the situation in Darfur to the International Criminal Court by adopting Resolution 1593.

Under the court's statute, the prosecutor's initiation of an investigation reflects his assessment that the Sudanese authorities are "unwilling or unable" to prosecute crimes within the ICC mandate, namely genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. This is consistent with Human Rights Watch's finding that the Sudanese authorities have not taken any meaningful steps to hold those most responsible for serious international crimes to account since the armed conflict began in February 2003

Read more.