Warrant Issued to Sudan's Leader

[Lord Setheris]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7923102.stm

The leader of Sudan has been issued a warrant by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity in Darfur. These charges do not include genocide, as genocidal intent has yet to be proven.

There is no immunity from the ICC. The next time he finds himself in international air space, he can and most likely will be arrested.

What do you think?

[Kerensky287]

I understand why this was placed in Discussion (it's more serious than "General") but I don't see what there is to discuss. The guy was responsible for genocide, and hell, it's about time he got arrested.

Still, "genocidal intent has yet to be proven"? What proof do they need other than the fact that it was pretty much a single race that the aggression was focused against?

[shiney]

They have to prove it was his edict and not the zealous following that was the cause of it.

[bluestarultor]

Awww! Isn't that cute? The UN thinks they're the US! :whee:


Seriously, the "toothless" comment is totally accurate. It's the reason the entire thing is a horrible failure and is simultaneously why Bush got away with all that he did. Again, showing it's a horrible failure. The thing is supposed to be world government, but the entire point of government is to make and then be able to enforce law, which the UN is severely lacking capability to do.

I doubt anything is going to come of this. The sad part is that if the US were saying it, it might actually be a cause for concern.

[Magus]

Well, the UN is comprised of several powerful member countries which can enforce its actions through action of their own. They just won't, as people have been calling for international intervention in Sudan for years and no one has bothered, especially not the U.S. which for better or worse (mostly worse under Bush) is often the leader in those types of things. Bush of course chose to ignore it completely as there was nothing in it for him, plus we are so entangled right now it'd be stretching us even thinner.

Surprise, surprise, Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestine's Islamic Jihad, and Syria are all backing al-Bashir. His indictment is, of course, a Western conspiracy. I had high hopes for better relations with the Middle East but it just seems that all the power groups you actually have to worry about are so far out of the mainstream thought of the majority of the world that it's just not going to happen in the majority of my life time.

[Peo]

It is sad that this warrant issued to a Muslim is being considered "an insult directed at Muslims". That seems to be blowing things out of proportion.

[bluestarultor]

Just here to drop a reality check. The US is incredibly hated in much of the Middle East, especially by the leadership in Iran.

I've seen it said that the only way to instill peace in the Middle East is to turn it into a glass parking lot, and I'm frankly inclined to agree. The reason we're in so much trouble right now is because we took out a guy who was so bad of a monster that he kept the place stable. THIS IS HOW THEY OPERATE OVER THERE! I mean, that pretty much sums up their society. Amish, they ain't. So the idea that what we consider the civilized world has a handhold in there is deluded, and they know it. They're going to be as flashy, arrogant, condescending, flippant, and disrespectful about it as possible to show that fact.

[Archbio]

I've seen it said that the only way to instill peace in the Middle East is to turn it into a glass parking lot, and I'm frankly inclined to agree.

Lawlz, genocide?

[Mesden]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

Awww! Isn't that cute? The UN thinks they're the US! :whee:


Seriously, the "toothless" comment is totally accurate. It's the reason the entire thing is a horrible failure and is simultaneously why Bush got away with all that he did. Again, showing it's a horrible failure. The thing is supposed to be world government, but the entire point of government is to make and then be able to enforce law, which the UN is severely lacking capability to do.

I doubt anything is going to come of this. The sad part is that if the US were saying it, it might actually be a cause for concern.

The UN is only impotent if the countries within its folds are impotent. This jingoistic "if the US would" argument means absolutely nothing considering the US is a big part of the UN and part of what gives it power.

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by Archbio

Lawlz, genocide?

I find dead people are particularly non-violent. :J

That said, I'm not saying I'm advocating doing so. Simply that the people over there live in a drastically different society and all have hated each other for long before the US was around, fostered in the scientific knowledge that has built modern society in the West, and are not about to change a system that has been in place for thousands of years just because a few people with comparatively new and wishy-washy ideas think they can make life nice for a change.

Originally Posted by Mesden

The UN is only impotent if the countries within its folds are impotent. This jingoistic "if the US would" argument means absolutely nothing considering the US is a big part of the UN and part of what gives it power.

That's a good case of exactly my point. Bush flew in the face of the UN to no drastic detriment. They didn't even attempt economic sanctions, which for the life of me is all I can remember them having effectively done in my lifetime of nearly 22 years. The idea that the UN is going to send in an invading force is laughable. Individual countries, case in point, once more, the US, are much more likely to act on their own in that capacity, regardless of the impotent outcry of a failure of an attempt at world government.