UN clears Sudan of genocide

[Guest Cerebus]

No other word I can use but disgusting.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

So what killed all those black people? (Hmm, should I or shouldn't I make a "they-were-fighting-for-the-last-piece-of-KFC-chicken-in-the-bucket" remark? Nah, I'll let someone else make this insensitive statement...)

[Guest Cerebus]

U.S. stinginess?

[Swift Terror 0]

Just curious, but do you know if the UN did the same thing regarding the Rwandan genocide, i.e. Hutsi and Tutsi conflict? Either way, this isn't surprising in the least, just confirmation that the UN is a non-entity.

[Guest Vitamin X]

And my friend still tried convincing me that the Universal Human Rights Declaration has any real force in the world other than just a "OK, we'll promise not to be bad" petition.

 

He's ridiculously liberal. I should bring him to this board.

[2GOLD 0]

*slaps forehead*

I give up on the UN.

 

Would they care to explain what their definition of genocide IS?!?!

[Dr. Tom 0]

*slaps forehead*

I give up on the UN.

I'm surprised it took you this long.

 

This outcome, while repugnant, was entirely expected.

[2GOLD 0]

I'm like Professor Xavier in a way.

I was hoping the UN would give me hope.

 

Obviously, that was like asking the Klan to donate money to the United Negro College Fund.

[Justice 0]

Come on, guys! Where's that good 'ole European try? Don't we remember who the REAL enemy in international politics is?

 

America! Yay![/sarcasm]

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

*slaps forehead*

I give up on the UN.

 

Would they care to explain what their definition of genocide IS?!?!

White people being killed?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

He's ridiculously liberal. I should bring him to this board.

We'll treat him good...

[Guest Cerebus]

*slaps forehead*

I give up on the UN.

 

Would they care to explain what their definition of genocide IS?!?!

White people being killed?

Actually white people doing the killing.

[Guest CronoT]

And my friend still tried convincing me that the Universal Human Rights Declaration has any real force in the world other than just a "OK, we'll promise not to be bad" petition.

 

He's ridiculously liberal. I should bring him to this board.

He's not Liberal; he's stupid. You should throw him to MikeSC, and watch the body parts fly.

[Celtic Guardian 0]

*slaps forehead*

I give up on the UN.

 

Would they care to explain what their definition of genocide IS?!?!

Genocide is something that the world says will happen "never again" essentially because the world won't acknowledge it when it happens again.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

By the way, before someone tries to turn this into LIBERALS R STOOPID 4 SUPPRTIN UN, the left thinks this is fucking stupid, too.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

By the way, before someone tries to turn this into LIBERALS R STOOPID 4 SUPPRTIN UN, the left thinks this is fucking stupid, too.

I hope that most of us are aware of that. There are a few racists like INXS around, but I don't believe that most of the left support this at all.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I don't even think this was the worst part of it. There was a point where the U.N. was heaping praise on Sundan for killing less people one month during the fall.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

So what does this really mean? That the people responsible won't be prosecuted as vigorously or what? Or is it just a matter of semantics?

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

That they won't be doing shit about any of it.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

That they won't be doing shit about any of it.

I think you're wrong.

 

 

U.N. Clears Sudan of Genocide in Darfur

 

NICK WADHAMS

 

Associated Press

 

 

UNITED NATIONS - A U.N. panel concluded that the Sudanese government and militias carried out mass killing and probably war crimes in the Darfur region, but stopped short of agreeing with a U.S. charge of genocide.

 

The commission urged that that suspects be tried before the International Criminal Court, accusing the government and militias - as well as rebels - of widespread abuses including torture, rape, killings of civilians and pillaging.

 

"The conclusion that no genocidal policy has been pursued and implemented in Darfur by the government authorities ... should not be taken in any way as detracting from the gravity of the crimes perpetrated in the region," the report said.

The United States has accused Sudan's government of directing militia who attack civilians in what Washington has called a genocidal campaign in the western region.

 

The United Nations has called Darfur the world's worst humanitarian crisis, saying the conflict between the government, rebels, and the government-backed Janjaweed militia has claimed 70,000 lives since March - mostly from disease and hunger. It now affects 2 million people, up from 1.8 million in September.

 

Sudan received an early copy of the report and said it refuted the U.S. contention of genocide.

 

"We have a copy of that report and they didn't say that there is a genocide," Sudan Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail said on the sidelines of an African Union summit in the Nigerian capital, Abuja.

 

Also Monday, Sudan's government and Darfur rebels said they will reopen long-stalled peace talks in Nigeria in February. Three previous peace conferences and a cease-fire agreement have failed to calm the violence.

 

The report on Darfur detailed a host of violations, including the government's failure to protect civilians from rebel attack, use of disproportionate force and attacks meant to force people to flee their homes.

 

It blamed the government for joining in the attacks and for complicity with the Janjaweed militia, and also accused rebels of massive violence.

"There was no military necessity for the destruction and devastation caused. The targets of destruction during the attacks under discussion were exclusively civilian objects," the panel said.

 

The panel said the government had not pursued a policy of genocide because there appeared to be no "genocidal intent" among government leaders - a push to exterminate an entire group for ethnic, religious or other reasons.

 

However, the panel did not rule out that a court could eventually find there may have been genocidal acts in Darfur and some individuals may be found guilty of genocidal intent.

"Some of these violations are very likely to amount to war crimes, and given the systematic and widespread pattern of many of the violations, they would also amount to crimes against humanity," the report said.

It recommended that the U.N. Security Council immediately refer the situation in Darfur to the International Criminal Court, the world's first permanent war crimes tribunal.

 

Stressing the need for quick action, it said "serious violations of international human rights law and humanitarian law by all parties are continuing."

The recommendation to put the case before the International Criminal Court could lead to a showdown within the Security Council because President Bush's administration strongly opposes the court and could use its veto to block a referral.

 

While Washington has demanded quick action, it has lobbied council members for a new tribunal to prosecute alleged crimes from Darfur which would operate in conjunction with the African Union.

 

"The important issue for us is accountability for the perpetrators of these acts," said U.S. deputy ambassador Anne W. Patterson. "And there are various options on the table, probably some in addition to those contained in the ... report and we'll be looking at that closely."

 

The Darfur conflict began when the rebels took up arms against what they saw as years of state neglect and discrimination against Sudanese of African origin.

 

The government is accused of responding with a counterinsurgency campaign in which an Arab militia, known as the Janjaweed, committed wide-scale abuses against the African population.

 

Salacious Crumb, this article leads me to believe that it's just a matter of semantics.

[Guest Vitamin X]

And my friend still tried convincing me that the Universal Human Rights Declaration has any real force in the world other than just a "OK, we'll promise not to be bad" petition.

 

He's ridiculously liberal. I should bring him to this board.

He's not Liberal; he's stupid. You should throw him to MikeSC, and watch the body parts fly.

So says the man with the most moronic sig in the history of messageboarding.

 

He'd hold up fairly well against MikeSC in an argument as he is extremely well-educated and intelligent, though both are so stubborn in their own views I don't think any good would come of it.

[Guest Cerebus]

No, its not semantics, since if they decided it was genocide they would be obliged to interfere. They're not.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

No, its not semantics, since if they decided it was genocide they would be obliged to interfere. They're not.

Okay. I didn't know that.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

This is kind of off topic, but if one supports prosecution for genocide, then, technically, shoudn't one support prosecution for hate crimes?

 

[from UN Convention on Genocide]

Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

 

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

© Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

 

This wording seems pretty similar to hate crimes legislation to me; that is, puninishing for "intent", which many people on this board railed against in a prior discussion of hate crimes.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Why are people so against the sig picture? It's harmless, not meant to be taken seriously. It's like when everyone had funny Kerry pictures making fun of him. It's not like they were meant to be serious.

[2GOLD 0]

Why are people so against the sig picture? It's harmless, not meant to be taken seriously. It's like when everyone had funny Kerry pictures making fun of him. It's not like they were meant to be serious.

 

I don't think it has much to do with Bush as it has to do with it being anime.

Anime has gotten very tired and boring.

Hell, most of them reacted like this for his Yu-Gi...well however that character's name is spelled sig.

 

See, your sig is quite interesting.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

This is kind of off topic, but if one supports prosecution for genocide, then, technically, shoudn't one support prosecution for hate crimes?

 

I do.

 

Hell, most of them reacted like this for his Yu-Gi...well however that character's name is spelled sig.

 

Mutou Yuugi? I assume you are talking about the pointy-haired guy from Yu-Gi-Oh!.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The UN decision is absolutely fucking stupid.

 

Bless you, UN, for ignoring all the violence and boiling the issue down to whether you can apply the word genocide to it or not. Knew you guys would come through. *groan*

[Guest Cerebus]

I revise my previous statement. Apparently while "horrifying" the government and the murdering fucksticks that make up the Janjaweed militia are not guilty of genocide as a whole but individuals may have acted with "genocidal intent." Of course, instead of direct action they suggested that the circus that is the ICC take up the prosecution of individuals. This accomplishes several things:

 

1) This frees the UN from being bound by convention to intervene in Sudan.

2) This allows plenty of time to delay actually doing something since the joke that is the ICC moves with all the speed of a dead slug.

3) This also gives an opportunity to embarass the US since we oppose the ICC for more than one reason.

[Guest BDC]

I revise my previous statement. Apparently while "horrifying" the government and the murdering fucksticks that make up the Janjaweed militia are not guilty of genocide as a whole but individuals may have acted with "genocidal intent." Of course, instead of direct action they suggested that the circus that is the ICC take up the prosecution of individuals. This accomplishes several things:

 

1) This frees the UN from being bound by convention to intervene in Sudan.

2) This allows plenty of time to delay actually doing something since the joke that is the ICC moves with all the speed of a dead slug.

3) This also gives an opportunity to embarass the US since we oppose the ICC for more than one reason.

We oppose the ICC and we're the bad guys.

 

My desire to travel out of the country has become even less.