Community | February 03, 2010 | 30 comments

Genocide charge now possible for Sudan's al-Bashir

source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100203/ap_on_re_eu/eu_war_crimes_darfur

Image
JanforGore

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100203/ap_on_re_eu/eu_war_crimes_darfur

The International Criminal Court will again consider charging Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir with genocide in Darfur, after an appeals panel ruled that judges made an "error in law" when they refused to indict him on that charge last year.

"He should get a lawyer," court prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo said after ruling Wednesday.

He accused al-Bashir of keeping 2.5 million refugees from specific ethnic groups in Darfur in camps "under genocide conditions, like a gigantic Auschwitz."

The appeals decision — which said the burden of proof should be lower when prosecutors seek an indictment than when they try to secure a conviction at trial — fueled hopes among human rights activists that prosecutors will indict other leaders around the world for atrocities.

The court is currently considering allegations of atrocities in countries from Colombia to Kenya, Gaza to Afghanistan, but has so far launched formal prosecutions in just four countries, all of them in Africa.

"This gives a new wind to the sails of international justice," said Kenyan human rights activist Njonjo Mue.

Moreno Ocampo welcomed the decision to reopen the Darfur genocide case and vowed to give judges even more evidence when they again consider charging al-Bashir with genocide.

A five-judge appeals chamber said the International Criminal Court wrongly concluded in March that there was insufficient evidence to charge al-Bashir with three counts of genocide for allegedly attempting to wipe out entire ethnic groups in the war-ravaged province of Darfur.

Instead, the court charged him with seven counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity for allegedly orchestrating a campaign of murder, torture, rape and forced expulsions in Darfur.

The Sudanese president refuses to recognize the court's jurisdiction and has vowed never to surrender to it. Since the charges were issued, he has traveled to friendly countries but called off trips to nations where he fears he could be arrested and sent to The Hague.

Al-Bashir's hardline regime also threw out 13 international aid agencies working in Darfur last March when the court first indicted him. The move further compounded the humanitarian crisis in a region where 300,000 people have died since fighting broke out in 2003 between the government and rebels. The United Nations says 2.7 million people have been driven from their homes by the conflict.

"For me, the fact that President Bashir expelled the humanitarian organizations is confirming that his intention is the physical destruction of these people," Moreno Ocampo told The Associated Press in his office at the court.

Wednesday's ruling set an important precedent because it marked the first time the world's first permanent war crimes court has dealt with a genocide case, said David Crane, a law professor at Syracuse University and former chief prosecutor at the Special Court for Sierra Leone.

cont.
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Green,   Current Tonight,   1 more
  2. tags:
    Culture,  Environment,  International News,  War Crimes,  9 more
  3.     
    |

30 comments // Genocide charge now possible for Sudan's al-Bashir

  • nicolay324
    • 0
      nicolay324  

    • WHEN IS AMERICA GOING TO JOIN THE ICC????? SERIUOSLY? OBAMA SHOULD GET AMERICA TO JOIN THE ICC, THE UNITED STATES IS THE MOST POWERFUL COUNTRY RIGHT NOW AND IF THEY JOIN THE ICC MORE WOULD BE DONE TO PUT THE BAD PEOPLE IN JAIL. i don't understand how some people think the ICC is stupid.

    • 3 years ago
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
  • outtheinside
    • 0
      outtheinside  
    • JanforGore:

      if the video would work, i'd have some comments - as well regardless of semantics. my comments below tell no lies. it's the picture that some would like to paint that tells the story of oil causing genocide. it's a simple story and its plot is false. unfortunately, natural resources can't explain all conflicts. i'd be happy to have a discussion as to how north and south sudan fight over oil, but Darfur, and specifically the Western Darfur region that encompasses the genocide, is not an oil rich environment being fought over.

      Your argument is like saying all the american colonists killed the indians for the gold in california. genocide is one thing, but killing for the cause of natural resources is completely another. i don't advocate or applaud either. i'm just pointing out the difference.

    • 3 years ago
  • MoonLoon
  • JonRaymond
  • manny0409
    • 0
      manny0409  

    • About time they start getting rats like this and stripping them off their power to commit atrocities like genocide. People have to recognize that we cant be ignorant to this issues anymore. Other countries are trying to have their say in Africa because of the many countries that have oil, and companies are willing to overlook these issues as long as they get what they want....

    • 3 years ago
  • outtheinside
    • 0
      outtheinside  
    • manny0409:

      not to defend big business, but for every contract that goes into southern sudan, there are programs - extra investments on top of the regular spillovers like infrastructure, technology, country growth - to help development. I've read about oil companies winning contracts by the amount they are willing to spend on education and ramping up the schools. Before many of these investments, most schools would make you swear to a religion before attending. With these extra investments added in order to win the contracts, the education grows as well as many other growth enablers. I'm all for renewable resources, but until oil is no longer sought after, I won't knock companies that go in and compete to win contracts by the amount they are willing to spend on legitimate development programs.

    • 3 years ago
  • manny0409
    • 0
      manny0409  
    • outtheinside:

      I understand what you're saying. I do agree on some things you said, but most companies do nothing. I have heard of situations in which large corporations go into countries and even pay the government millions of dollars to close areas off where there are citizens living and force them out, just because they could not directly persuade them to leave with money in the first place.
      I'm not going to mention any countries because I really don't like speaking bad of countries and its people, but some countries are going into Africa with intentions of paying off the debt of corrupt governments in Africa in exchange for the resources they have, diamonds, oil, etc. This all sounds very good to them now but I bet when they run out of resources to give, they will no longer have anyone to support them.

    • 3 years ago
  • manny0409
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • Of course there have been. The Sudan has a history of conquest from the time it was taken by Turkey and Egypt, to Britain in the 1800s, to 1969 when a military coup installed Numieri who executed communists he thought were fomenting a coup against him to instituting sharia law in the 80s which led to civil war and the SPLM under John Garang, to another military coup installing al-Bashir in 1989. There has been much bloodshed over oil, agriculture, water, land, and also because of creed. So I do not see this as diminishing the dead, but finding at least some way to give them justice. And in my opinion there is no such thing as "peace" talks regarding Darfur. Not as long as oil is at the center of this which is also bringing environmental devastation to other areas of the world as well.

    • 3 years ago
  • outtheinside
    • 0
      outtheinside  
    • Image
    • JanforGore:

      Check out this map of where the oil and gas holders operate (Oct. 2002).
      http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/2.htm
      These blocks have been the same for years. Compare that map to where the genocide has occurred. You'll notice that even though the news generalizes the location as "Darfur", it is the Western Darfur region that houses the genocide. The region of Southern Darfur barely touches the bulk of the oil and natural gas and is not where the huge genocide with camps and raids has occurred.

      I point all of this out just to make the point that although oil is one of the reasons for North-South conflict, it is not the cause of the Darfurian conflict. Peace can occur in Darfur even with disputes over oil in the rest of the country. If the genocide was about oil, then there would be no reason to attack a specific racial and cultural group in Western Darfur. The hundreds of languages and ethnic groups housed primarily in the south, with only a couple groups running the government and housed in the north, is more cause for conflict in Darfur than oil ever has been.

    • 3 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • outtheinside:

      I also didn't say it was "the:" cause, and I know well about the blocks, and that some of them were indeed where villages were destroyed and people moved from. We could debate that all day, it still doesn't change the fact of what happened and that the ICC is finally doing something to at least being this into the spotlight and back into the world's consciousness.

    • 3 years ago
  • outtheinside
    • -1
      outtheinside  
    • JanforGore:

      from this comment of yours:

      "And in my opinion there is no such thing as "peace" talks regarding Darfur. Not as long as oil is at the center of this which is also bringing environmental devastation to other areas of the world as well."

      putting oil at the center makes it "the" cause. those are your words. and also, we can't debate all day about the oil and darfur. west darfur is the genocide. people have moved and villages have burned all over sudan due to civil war and it's massive size. even in the north atrocities have occurred, but none of that is what is considered "the genocide in darfur". the oil is not the center of the darfur genocide and it never has been.

    • 3 years ago
  • outtheinside
    • 0
      outtheinside  

    • Although I am as pissed as everyone of the continuation of this brutality, Darfur isn't the only region in Sudan that has experienced this and it hasn't only been this decade. I will stop short of saying that at least something now is being done because the words "at least" do nothing for those that were murdered and pushed out of Sudan since the country's independence in 1954. Darfur is the recent tragedy but there have been decades of tragedy in Sudan before this and not just under the regime of al-Bashir.

      I also don't think the peace talks that he was attending are because of the trial. He thinks this is a joke and couldn't care less to act upon the court's rule. Peace talks have stopped and started many times in the history of their independence. The latest was 2002. The talks he's at now are a continuation of those same 2002 talks. The charges were brought in 2008.

      From the many books and scholarly political economy journals I've read on the Sudan, my personal opinion is that Southern and Northern Sudan are two different worlds and should be separated. Not only that, but oil is the mother****** here. Had oil not been discovered in the late 1970's, the north would be more than happy to have rid themselves of the cultural division of the south. It's been stated by many Sudanese scholars that much of the north was apathetic to secession of the south until oil was found even though many other African countries pressured Sudan to stay together for fear of their own countries dividing.

      The fight over the world's scarce natural resources is humanities number one cause of death. Where are the sustainable resources?

    • 3 years ago
  • Pari_HIlton
  • JanforGore
  • Logos51891
    • 0
      Logos51891  

    • Charging him with genocide has been possible for the better part of a decade. It's is a tragedy that things are picking up only now.

    • 3 years ago
  • JanforGore
  • Sexirobot
  • TheArtfulKill
    • 0
      TheArtfulKill  

    • this is ridiculous...its been about 7 years since this has started. If the ICC was going to do anything, or if this man was going to be the target of an assassination it would have happened a long time ago.

    • 3 years ago
  • thare58
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
  • Nephwrack
  • Nephwrack
    • 0
      Nephwrack  

    • what about bush and cheney, and for the leaders of israel? oh and for all the ppl who are going to call me a bigot, i only speak of the actions of their secular government, against the civillian populace of palestine.

    • 3 years ago
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • Hoping this happens. Justice must prevail in the genocide of Darfur. And Mr. Ocampo is correct. It is only because of this that Bashir is presenting this gesture of talking at a peace talk. This will be interesting as well as it relates to China. China was against the Court filing anything against Bashir even knowing his crimes because to that government trade in arms and oil are more important than human lives. Gee, sounds like another government we know. I also think any company and/ or government that aided him in this genocide should be brought up on charges as well.

    • 3 years ago
more from Community:
from the community

top videos