Arresting President Bashir of Sudan over Darfur?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Macky-Mac, Jul 12, 2008.

  1. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #1
    It's curious that the crisis in Darfur is so rarely discussed here. I'm wondering what people think about this situation.

    The International Criminal Court wants to have the president of Sudan arrested and tried for what's going on in Darfur. Is this the way to deal with the situation? Is it acceptable for outside forces to arrest the president of Sudan or should this be strictly a hands-off situation?

    LA Times report
     
  2. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #2
    It worked with Milosevic. That said, I think the US is in no position to speak on this matter, considering its energetic campaign to remove all power from the ICC and its frank hypocrisy on matters relating to the court.
     
  3. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #3
    In the interests of fairness, Bush, Rumsfeld, Blair, Hoon and Cheney should be arrested at the same time.
     
  4. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #4
    Claiming equivalence between the terrible things that the Bush team has done and the clear crimes against humanity occurring in Sudan is totally unfair.
     
  5. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #5
    Care to compare the body counts?
     
  6. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #6
    Body counts do not a genocide make.
     
  7. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #7
    Oh, is there a learning curve??

    NO ONE on this Earth should be throwing stones at the present time.
     
  8. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #8
    I might agree with you there. Although I might think it's unfair for different reasons.

    No, you're probably right, it is unfair to compare the two issues but when an illegal act that leads to the slaughter of so many people and inaction in other areas, it's hard not to shake your head in disbelief.

    I hate the US and UK government for the catastrophe they lead us into and might be leading us into again, but it's probably not an attempt at genocide (although, if it's Iran+Iraq+Afghanistan, it might take some looking at!).

    Skunk is right, Bush and Blair should be on trial (as soon as Bush no longer has the impunity that being a leader brings).
     
  9. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #9
    Any chance they could take Rice, too? Even half a dozen? :eek:
     
  10. Macky-Mac thread starter macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #10
    My! Such a short list you have!

    But is it your view that it's legitimate to arrest and jail the leader of another country if some international entity decides they don't like his policies??
     
  11. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #11
    Surely 'arrest and put on trial' would be more relevant to what he said?
     
  12. Macky-Mac thread starter macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #12
    but is there anything to be done about it? Is outside intervention warranted or even allowable?
     
  13. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #13
    The U.N. would be a good arbitrator for those who should be arrested/imprisoned, but unfortunately we don't have someone from another World, without an axe to grind to spearhead the issue.
     
  14. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #14
    Well, they could (and should) be tried for war crimes at the Hague. After all, what they have done is said to be 'the ultimate war crime'.
     
  15. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #15
    Hang-on a minute, hold your calls, I do believe we have a winner. :p

    [​IMG]
     
  16. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #16
    My personal opinion is... it depends. It depends on whether the nation of citizenship and/or the nation in which the crime took place are / were at the time signatories to the ICC. As far as I know, Sudan is not now and never has been. Iraq is not now and never has been. The United States became a signatory but withdrew without ratification. I believe the UK signed and ratified and is still a member.

    So as I understand it, the UK leaders skunk mentioned are susceptible under their own law to trial by the ICC, if a case against them were to be found. The US is a dicier issue. The crimes were not committed inside an ICC member state, and US law does not recognize the ICC, but I guess an argument could be made for holding them responsible for war crimes committed during the signatory era, and if such a case were plied, they could potentially be arrested for extradition anytime they enter a member state (which is fairly often).
     
  17. Macky-Mac thread starter macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #17
    and what about during the crisis? is it acceptable for the UN or the AU to intervene to put a stop to the slaughter? Recalling what happened in Rwanda, is it necessary to sit by and wait until after the crisis before anything can be done?
     
  18. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #18
    I don't understand how this follows from the previous question I addressed... :confused: but... this goes to the basic question of whether war can ever be justified. In my mind, there is a limited difference between military interventions by the UN and "justifiable" war by individual countries. The UN imposes some safeguards and standards, but the end result is similar...

    I think sometimes at least it's justifiable, if nothing else, on the basis of the collateral impact of human rights violation on third party countries. Recent campaigns by Western nations aren't great examples of this, but, for instance, the Indo-Pakistani war in 1971... India's actions were swift and relatively contained (they finished the liberation of Bangladesh from Pakistan in basically a couple of weeks), meaning there was little in the way of retribution or excessive force involved. Their justification, arguably, was that the human rights violations in East Pakistan (which would become Bangladesh) were causing large numbers of refugees to flock into India. So the foreign campaign was necessary for border stability and to prevent internal destablization caused by the massive influx.

    Many of the more recent conflicts have been bad examples in the sense that they did not end so cleanly as that war did, but by the same token, when your civil abuses lead to refugees showing up on my door (from East Pakistan, from Rwanda, from the Sudan, whatever), it would seem like I have at least some right to knock on your door and threaten an ass kicking if you don't settle down and quit sending people over my way....
     
  19. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #19
    Well, somebody's gotta throw something, but it seems like the stones keep flying in the wrong directions.

    Don't get me wrong. I think the Iraq war was a disastrous choice wrapped in considerable fraud. It was a war of aggression and the most innocent folks in all of this--the Iraqi people--have paid the price. But it is not by any stretch of the imagination a genocide. So I actually think we're in complete agreement.

    In practical terms, the bar needs to be set pretty high for prosecution of world leaders. There's always a subtle balance between sovereignty and accountability, and between stability and justice, when it comes to world affairs. If we went around prosecuting world leaders for every transgression, we'd create more wars than we'd prevent.

    The Bush administration has a claim (if a flimsy one) that there was basis of the Iraq war. My feeling is that the war itself is not legally actionable in that its justification is at least debatable. It's more a matter of poor judgment than criminality. Where things get dicey are with the distortion of intelligence, but even there, I'm not sure. Deceiving the American people is a purely domestic matter and has nothing to do with international courts. Deceiving the UN didn't work. So if you can't pin them on the actual war, then you probably can't pin them on the intelligence stuff. Now, if the fact that this is a war of aggression is sufficient basis, then hey, maybe.

    Just remember, that in the grand scheme of things, war crimes tribunals have only picked up steam for the grossest of transgressions. While we're all upset about Iraq, it really is not in the same league at all as Rwanda, the Holocaust, or Sudan.

    Afghanistan, though: I think completely justified (since it was a responsive action to a direct attack), but weakened by a lack of attention.

    I think this is an important point. I tend to think that a genocide represents one of those rare situations in which action (diplomatic, and if that fails, military) is not only justified, but required. But line drawing is difficult, both when it comes to defining genocide and initiating military action.
     
  20. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #20
    Genocide is not the only Crime Against Humanity. The assault on Fallujah springs to mind, among many other incidents. This was just as much a criminal act as the assault on Halabja, and someone swung for that, I recall. Your bar appears to be set just high enough to give your criminal of choice a free pass.
     
  21. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #21
    I agree that it's not genocide. If the US (or pretty much any of the allied nations like the UK, France, Germany et al) wanted to cause genocide, we'd know about it because the whole middle east would be on fire and nearly all of its inhabitants would be dead.

    Nobody is asking that we prosecute for every transgression. The Nuremberg trials (and therefor the UN Charter) called it the 'the supreme war crime'. So the leaders should be put on trial.

    Sorry but that's not a debatable point. What they did was against international law. It's a case of poor judgment and criminality.

    Just because the intention (as far as we know, at least) wasn't to go on a crusade (nice choice of words, Mr. President) it doesn't mean it's not a hateful crime that shouldn't be punishable. Which it is.

    You can't just invade a country, kill a million people and say 'whoops, my bad'. Doesn't work. The invasion and occupation was, and is, illegal (along with many actions from the military, like attacking hospitals, Haditha etc). You can't play pirates and emperors with people's lives.

    As for being upset about Iraq, that doesn't quite cover it. ;)

    Sorry, but that isn't correct. The US was never attacked by Afghanistan so it can't have been a direct response to an attack.
     
  22. Dmac77 macrumors 68020

    Dmac77

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Location:
    Michigan
    #22
    Arrest Warrant issued for Omar Bashir (President of Sudan)

    So as the title says, Omar Bashir is now a fugitive, the Hague has issued an arrest warrant for him. What are your opinions about this. Do you think that he will be arrested and tried?

    Personally I think that this a wonderful thing, but I don't think that he's stupid enough to leave Sudan, and I don't think that any country will try to capture him; therefor he won't get tried for his crimes.

    Don
     
  23. iShater macrumors 604

    iShater

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #23
    All nice that they do that, but I doubt it will get the issues in Darfur resolved. :(
     
  24. Dmac77 macrumors 68020

    Dmac77

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Location:
    Michigan
    #24
    What war Crimes? Go and ask the Afghans if they enjoyed watching their families being slaughtered for not accepting every word the Taliban spoke as God's word, or for not even believing in Allah? Then go and ask the Iraqis if they enjoyed being gassed by their leaders because they had different religious view points. The US saved the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. I just don't get this, the US went and saved people from their oppressors, and the US gets bitched out for it. But if the US would have gone into Sudan and done something there everything would be hunky-dory. Why must the US bow down to the international community and allow terrorists to attack us and allow rogue governments to support terrorists?

    Don
     
  25. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #25
    The Taliban was running Afghanistan when they attacked us.
     

Share This Page