World court to open Darfur cases

[Gunny]

By Laura Trevelyan
BBC News, New York

Mr Moreno-Ocampo has issued two arrest warrants over Darfur
The International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor is to announce two new cases in Sudan over attacks on humanitarian workers and peacekeepers.
Luis Moreno-Ocampo will also tell the UN of Sudan's continuing failure to arrest two men accused of war crimes.

In February Mr Moreno-Ocampo issued arrest warrants for Ahmed Haroun, a Sudanese government minister, and Ali Kushayb, a Janjaweed militia leader.

Both men were accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur.

The Sudanese government does not recognise the International Criminal Court and has not arrested the pair.

Khartoum subsequently made Mr Haroun responsible for investigating humanitarian abuses in Darfur.

more ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7128160.stm

Maybe the World Court will be more successful than the UN was.

 

[mattskramer]

Maybe the World Court will be more successful than the UN was.

Why should the US care about Darfur? There is no rich oil reserve in that area of the world is there? It couldn’t serve as any strategic political or military post could it? It is just a sand heap full of morbidly skinny people. We still have Iraq to settle and Afghanistan is still causing us problems. What profit is there for the US in Darfur? Could we send Halliburton out there to do collect some stuff for us? I don’t know.

 

[Gunny]

Why should the US care about Darfur? There is no rich oil reserve in that area of the world is there? It couldn’t serve as any strategic political or military post could it? It is just a sand heap full of morbidly skinny people. We still have Iraq to settle and Afghanistan is still causing us problems. What profit is there for the US in Darfur? Could we send Halliburton out there to do collect some stuff for us? I don’t know.

Since when did you turn into a leftwingnut posterboy?

Note, that I said UN, not the US.

However, I consider genocide everyone's business. It is the UN's job to take care of such situations, then the US doesn't end up having to.

Just more evidence to the fact we may as well be throwing our UN dues into a fire as give it to that paper tiger.

 

[mattskramer]

Since when did you turn into a leftwingnut posterboy?

Note, that I said UN, not the US.

However, I consider genocide everyone's business. It is the UN's job to take care of such situations, then the US doesn't end up having to.

Just more evidence to the fact we may as well be throwing our UN dues into a fire as give it to that paper tiger.

I was being sarcastic and melodramatic. Honestly, I think that America should do a little bit more in Darfur and a little bit less in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think that I read somewhere that the money spent on one day of the Iraq war could buy homes for almost 6,000 families.

 

[Larkinn]

Since when did you turn into a leftwingnut posterboy?

Note, that I said UN, not the US.

However, I consider genocide everyone's business. It is the UN's job to take care of such situations, then the US doesn't end up having to.

Just more evidence to the fact we may as well be throwing our UN dues into a fire as give it to that paper tiger.

The US didn't want it to be sent to the ICC. They abstained on the vote, but at least they didn't vote against it.

And really...give power to the UN or don't, but removing all power and then bitching that they don't have any is increasingly boring.

 

[Gunny]

The US didn't want it to be sent to the ICC. They abstained on the vote, but at least they didn't vote against it.

And really...give power to the UN or don't, but removing all power and then bitching that they don't have any is increasingly boring.

The UN had power and instead concerned itself with perpetuating its own bureaucracy. It doesn't deserve and power, and I'd scrap it in a heartbeat if it was up to me.

 

[Larkinn]

The UN had power and instead concerned itself with perpetuating its own bureaucracy. It doesn't deserve and power, and I'd scrap it in a heartbeat if it was up to me.

Really? The UN had power Gunny? Please explain to me exactly what force the UN has (or ever had) to use on its own behalf to enforce its rulings.

 

[mattskramer]

The UN had power and instead concerned itself with perpetuating its own bureaucracy. It doesn't deserve and power, and I'd scrap it in a heartbeat if it was up to me.

That rhetoric sounds like sour grapes to me. Did you have any problem with the UN when it gave a unanimous vote against Iraq for the first Gulf War? I’m not saying that you are guilty of it, but I find it hypocritical on the one hand, conservatives use the UN resolutions to justify US action but then discount UN decisions and opinions with respect to other issues.

The UN was practically unanimous in its position for the first Gulf War. By the same token, look at the many nations that supported the Kyoto Protocol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kyoto_Protocol_participation_map_2005.png

Conservatives would say, “Yeah. Right on, UN! You are absolutely right”. On the one hand, but, “No way. How could you be so foolish?” on the other.

By the way, I have not read the appropriate resolutions concerning Iraq but since they were UN resolutions, wasn’t it up to the UN to decide whether or not Iraq violated them to such a degree to warrant going to war?

 

[Gunny]

Really? The UN had power Gunny? Please explain to me exactly what force the UN has (or ever had) to use on its own behalf to enforce its rulings.

I did not say the UN had its own force to use on its own behalf. More word games?

The UN had/has the authority to raise whatever forces it deems necessary from member nations. That would be a UN force, would it not?

If it is supposedly the UN's function to not allow such goings on as happened in Rwanda and are happening in Darfur, the UN has the authority to raise a force to put a stop to it.

It failed miserably in Rwanda, and the last-minute token effort its put into Darfur is pathetic.

It's a useless organization.

 

[Larkinn]

I did not say the UN had its own force to use on its own behalf. More word games?

At least come up with some more creative unsupported allegations for once. These old ones are getting tiring.

The UN had/has the authority to raise whatever forces it deems necessary from member nations. That would be a UN force, would it not?

Incorrect. It has the authority to ask for those forces.

If it is supposedly the UN's function to not allow such goings on as happened in Rwanda and are happening in Darfur, the UN has the authority to raise a force to put a stop to it.

Technically yes, realistically no. Why? Because it is hamstrung by the US and other governments who play politics with it. Until the US and other governments are willing to give up some power to the UN it will remain largely powerless.

The UN does not have the power to do anything. The UNSC, made up of member states, has the power to do things, but realistically its power is extremely limited as well.

It failed miserably in Rwanda, and the last-minute token effort its put into Darfur is pathetic.

The last minute effort the US opposed, don't forget.

It's a useless organization.

Useless for invading countries on HR grounds, yes. It does a lot of amazing work around the globe, and if you want it to have power it can very easily. But the US will never let it have that power, and neither would you.

 

[Gunny]

At least come up with some more creative unsupported allegations for once. These old ones are getting tiring.



Incorrect. It has the authority to ask for those forces.

How can I be incorrect if that's exactly what I said?


Technically yes, realistically no. Why? Because it is hamstrung by the US and other governments who play politics with it. Until the US and other governments are willing to give up some power to the UN it will remain largely powerless.

The UN does not have the power to do anything. The UNSC, made up of member states, has the power to do things, but realistically its power is extremely limited as well.

Splitting hairs.

The last minute effort the US opposed, don't forget.

Make up your mind ... did the US oppose, or abstain?

Useless for invading countries on HR grounds, yes. It does a lot of amazing work around the globe, and if you want it to have power it can very easily. But the US will never let it have that power, and neither would you.

I don't want the UN to have power. I want the US out of the UN. You might be into that One World Order crap, but I am not.

 

[Larkinn]

I don't want the UN to have power. I want the US out of the UN. You might be into that One World Order crap, but I am not.

Then don't bitch when it doesn't have the power to do things.

How can I be incorrect if that's exactly what I said?

It cannot "raise the forces of whatever it deems necessary", it can ASK for the forces. You do get the massive difference between being able to demand something and ask for it, yes?

Splitting hairs.

No, its not. Its recognizing that instead of bashing the UN you should be bashing the 5 veto members. Which you won't do, because its all the rage to bash the UN regardless of the reality.

Make up your mind ... did the US oppose, or abstain?

Those two are not mutually exclusive. In fact they are both true. The US opposed it, and so it abstained.