World Court Identifies Darfur Perpetrators

Is Sudan arming the militias and hindering the relief efforts in Darfur? An investigation into atrocities in Darfur is almost complete. International Criminal Court Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno - O'Campo says that if the Sudan Government is not conducting its own legitimate inquiry, he will present evidence to the Judges of the International Criminal Court.

The International Criminal Court has found sufficient evidence to identify the perpetrators of some of the worst atrocities in Sudan's Darfur region, and the probe offers "reasonable grounds to believe" that crimes against humanity were committed, chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo told the annual meeting of the court's member states in The Hague.

"We selected incidents during the period in which the gravest crimes occurred," he said Thursday in a report on his activities over the past year. "Based on the evidence collected, we identified those most responsible for the crimes." Moreno-Ocampo did not name the targets of the investigation, which he said is nearly complete.

How bad is it there?

The emergency relief coordinator, Jan Egeland, told the Security Council that the coming weeks might "be make or break for our lifeline to more than 3 million people. The situation in Darfur is closer to the abyss than I have witnessed since my first visit in 2004."

"Time is against us," Secretary General Kofi Annan said.

And this from Andrew Natsios, the U.S. presidential special envoy to Sudan:

...the Sudanese military has "now mobilized the Arab militias to attack soft targets, which is to say villages and the displaced camps." If this continues, he warned, no one in the United States would have faith in a negotiating process.

"There is no doubt that the Janjaweed and those who are committing atrocities are an extension of the Sudanese military," Natsios said.

Save Darfur.

In related news, U.N. investigators have found a mass grave in an Army camp in the Congo.

< Michael Ware Reporting From Iraq | Lack of Progress Seen in Shutting Down Bush's Warantless Wiretapping Program >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    How's Diplomacy working out? (1.00 / 1) (#1)
    by jarober on Sat Nov 25, 2006 at 08:26:02 AM EST
    So, How's TL's preferred solution - endless talking with UN diplomats - working out for the people of Darfur?

    Who appointed you the spokesperson... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Bill Arnett on Sat Nov 25, 2006 at 02:00:39 PM EST
    ...for what TLers at large think might be a solution to ANY problem.

    I fear you arrogate yourself falsely when you consider what a large audience with a multitude of diverse opinions is present here at TL.

    That's just setting up straw men for you to shoot down yourself.

    But, on topic, the United State cannot do anything to stop the slaughter in Darfur, both from a lack of will (no oil there, after all) and an inability to stretch our paper tiger military forces any thinner.

    When our C-in-C has damaged our military so badly that we have not ONE combat ready brigade to protect CONUS, just where do you fancy the troops will come from?

    bush is already going to go down in history as the first U.S. president to lose two wars simultaneously and, what, you want to make it THREE?


    Sure there is oil. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Nov 25, 2006 at 07:03:10 PM EST
    That is why china is now Sudan's protector.  You need to read up on Sudan.

    Careful Bill (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 05:56:47 PM EST
    Bill - I hold the position that you should never ask someone to die for their country unless you can demonstrate that military action is necessary as a matter of national interest.

    So, can you demonstrate that the killings in Darfur harm our national interest?

    Or, are you ready to say that we should intervene?

    Careful, Bill. Your answer will define who and what you really are.


    So (none / 0) (#2)
    by aw on Sat Nov 25, 2006 at 09:11:10 AM EST
    What you describe as "TL's preferred solution" seems to actually be that of the current administration.  I think you're projecting a bit--unless you think Bushco takes orders from TL.

    Jeez, aw, you just gave away the best... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Bill Arnett on Sat Nov 25, 2006 at 03:25:49 PM EST
    ...kept secret of all, that bushco takes marching orders from TL! AND STILL DOESN'T LISTEN!

    Now Jeralyn will have to pick up the hotline to the Whitehouse and explain everything.


    Making a Point (none / 0) (#3)
    by jarober on Sat Nov 25, 2006 at 12:02:19 PM EST
    It does demonstrate what happens when slaughter is left to the diplomats though, which was my point. I don't want the US military engaged there anymore than TL does, but I also don't maintain the fantasy that blathering diplomats will solve anything.  Diplomats are effective if and only if power stands behind them.  Words backed by nothing don't have any power.

    I Don't Have a Preferred Solution (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Nov 25, 2006 at 03:13:10 PM EST
    I don't have a preferred solution for Darfur.  I'm not suggesting talking by diplomats is enough, nor am I suggesting we try to militarily solve the problem.

    I do think it is helpful to raise awareness of what's going on there.  And I'm glad to see the International Criminal Court, which Bush stupidly refused to join, get involved.

    As Last Night in Little Rock, who has defended an alleged war criminal in the ICC of Sierre Leone wrote here:

    First, the U.S., thanks to President Bush's unsigning of President Clinton's December 2000 signing on to the ICC, is not a party to the "Rome Statute" that  created the ICC. (Go to WhiteHouse.gov and search "International Criminal Court"; see example) The administration has been overtly hostile to the ICC because it goes to any length to veto anything before the UN Security Council without language in it that protects U.S. troops and personnel from the jurisdiction of the ICC.

    All the better to facilitate hiding... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Bill Arnett on Sat Nov 25, 2006 at 03:32:01 PM EST
    ...war crimes committed in America's name...

    ...because it goes to any length to veto anything before the UN Security Council without language in it that protects U.S. troops and personnel from the jurisdiction of the ICC.

    It will not be until bush's "veil of secrecy" is lifted that the true damage done us is revealed.

    The realm heartbreak here is that we cannot and COULD NOT do anything in Darfur EVEN IF WE WANTED TOO because of the gross misuse of our military power.


    You are wrong again. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Nov 25, 2006 at 07:11:35 PM EST
    Look a a map of Darfur.  The region is about 500 miles from the Red sea, the only way to position troops with out help from Libya or Chad (in a civil war).  We would need to get permission for over flights from the Sudanese gov't.  (see the problem).  Helicopters do not have the range to fly there without refueling at least once.  Where to we put refueling bases in Sadan without Sudanese permission?  What countries will host us?  As long as China will veto anything security council wise, nothing will be done in Sudan.  

    We appear to be saying the same... (none / 0) (#11)
    by Bill Arnett on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 12:58:31 PM EST
    ...thing, stated slightly differently, so if I'm wrong, so are you.

    Where's the fun in that?


    Naw: (none / 0) (#12)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 03:08:17 PM EST
    You imply we could not do anything because of our problems in Korea, Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan etc.  I am saying even if we were not in any of those places we could not do anything because of the Chicoms actions and the great distances involved.  

    TL (none / 0) (#10)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Nov 25, 2006 at 07:14:25 PM EST
    As long as China is getting oil from Sudan, you raise awareness all you want, but nothing will get done.  The have veto power over any resolution.  

    I wonder (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by aw on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 08:34:40 PM EST
    if the situation would be different if we were not in debt up to our eyeballs to the Chinese and if we had not squandered our military strength in Iraq and if we had faced the energy crisis head on decades ago.  We might have had more clout to deal with this if we hadn't made so many dumb, short-sighted moves.

    Of course US companies are (none / 0) (#16)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 10:26:10 AM EST
    not allowed to do business in Sudan.  Maybe they should be allowed to.  Was that a dumb shortsighted move?  

    What does that have to do with anything? (none / 0) (#17)
    by aw on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 11:49:20 AM EST
    Doesn't matter anyway, corporations do what they want with impunity (see Halliburton, Iraq sanctions).

    Sanctions against doing business in Sudan seems like small potatoes in the grand scheme of things, like the last 30 years or so of not addressing energy issues that Carter warned us about.  Think of what we could have accomplished in that time.  We wasted it for short-sighted policies that favor big oil and tax cuts for the wealthy while borrowing to pay for them.  Put that up against our gigantic indebtedness to China (China!).


    Wile (1.00 / 1) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 05:59:23 PM EST
    Wile ... You again provide facts and logic.

    Shame on you. I mean, really.