Bring It On!

ICC might issue arrest warrant for Sudan President.

July 11th, 2008 | by Dusty |

With any luck the bastard will be charged with genocide in the Darfur region. The International Criminal Court is considering issuing a warrant for Omar Hassan al-Bashir, the so-called President of Sudan. From CNN:

The ambassador said Friday that the International Criminal Court has indicated to Sudanese officials that al-Bashir may be charged over the five-year campaign of violence in the country’s Darfur region.

If the warrant is issued by Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo it would make al-Bashir the first sitting president to be indicted by the ICC for genocide.

If wishing could make it so, this man would of been tried years ago and 400,000 people wouldn’t of been killed as well as the 2.5 million that had their villages razed and now live in squalor in refugee camps.

Ironically, the US doesn’t recognize the ICC. Ain’t that a bitch my dear reader.

China however has allowed this to happen. They have vetoed every resolution brought forth by the UN. Two-thirds of the country now lives in refugee camps and Al-Bashir says he has done nothing wrong..friggin amazing.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 26 Responses to “ICC might issue arrest warrant for Sudan President.”

  2. By Mateo Giovanni on Jul 12, 2008 | Reply

    Good for them!

    Now they need to tackle the UN announced human genocide by Israel of the Palestinian People.

    Oh, and they might want to go after Bush for killing well over a million people, and ruining the entire Iraqi Genome, as well as that of over 300,000 soldier’s and Contractors due to depleted uranium, hell that might show some real progress.

    Peace and Freedom

  3. By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 12, 2008 | Reply

    Because the ICC worked so well for Slobodan Milošević, whose four year plus trial (more if you include in that time period all the legal the time since he had been indicted in 1999) was more interminable than his own life, more indeterminate, too. If that was the model of ICC efficiency in the dispensing of justice, we’d all die of natural causes before a trial of the president of Sudan was completed.


    Why should they go after Bush? They never even looked askance at Saddam Hussein and his sons, Uday and Qusay, far greater criminals than Bush has ever been accused of being by his worst detractors.

    But I suspect you’re right, they would indict, try and convict Bush in about a day and a half from beginning to end.

  4. By Dusty on Jul 12, 2008 | Reply

    Craig, if it’s efficiency your looking for, then this court isn’t for you. The fact that the major powers do not support it doesn’t help either.

    As for Bush, comparing him to Saddam and his sons ain’t the best thing in the world now is it? ;) Is that where the line is drawn?

    Bush’s Wars have killed, maimed and made refugees of millions of people. Therefore I fail to see how you can say Saddamn was a far greater criminal, they are both equal in my eyes.

  5. By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 12, 2008 | Reply

    Well, Dusty, efficiency isn’t everything in the dispensing of justice but it’s important (as per the whole “justice delayed is justice denied” thing and in the Slobodan case, quite literally accurate) but yes, I think the Milošević trial pretty well sums up a major problem with the court. I don’t see how America’s support of the court would have made much difference.

    Perhaps comparing him to Saddam isn’t the best thing from my point of view but I doubt the comparison rang false in Mateo’s eyes (or yours, apparently) and it was to him that I was responding and besides, the point was that I consider Saddam far worse than Bush — as I’ll explain in a moment — and the court, so far as I know, never once even considered trying him.

    That you can consider Saddam Hussein on a moral par with George W. Bush seems incredible to me. The man murdered to attain the position of head of state. He murdered to keep his position. Jesus, he murdered his own family members, not to mention cabinet members for what, in his fevered mind appeared to be disloyalty without even the appearance of a show-trial, by summary execution. He and his sons tortured and raped dissenters, gassed the Kurds and his deliberate crimes to achieve no other end than his own power, wealth and self-aggrandizement are innumerable.

    Both equal? I think not. Bush did what the ICC should have done but didn’t: brought Saddam to justice.

  6. By Paul Watson on Jul 12, 2008 | Reply

    It might have something to do with the fact that it wasn’t created until 2002. And by that point, Saddam, Uday and Qusay wasn’t really a problem, were they?

    I’m also not really sure that America and Americans are in a good position to comment on international law at the moment, mentioning no bays in Cuba.

  7. By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 12, 2008 | Reply

    The man, Saddam, deliberately patterned his reign of terror over his own people according to Joseph Stalin. Bush = Saddam? Sorry. I don’t see it at all.

  8. By Dusty on Jul 12, 2008 | Reply

    It’s how many deaths they both caused for me Craig..and BushCo is at the top of the list as far as I am concerned.

    Apparently driving millions of people from their homes, and leaving tons of spent Depleted Uranium in Iraq doesn’t count in your book?

    Bush has done just as much damage in Iraq as Saddam ever did.

    Bush had his excuses, nee lies for invading Iraq..all were false flags Craig.

  9. By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 12, 2008 | Reply

    Okay, I seem to have confused the ICC for the International Criminal Tribunal, the court that tried Milošević. My bad. Although, that court was certainly in existence long enough to have done something about Saddam.

    And we Americans can comment on any issue at any time. It’s the American way ;-)

  10. By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 12, 2008 | Reply

    Okay, Dusty. We’re simply not going to agree about that. :-(

  11. By Dusty on Jul 12, 2008 | Reply

    No shit Craig…what was your first clue?

    Bush has managed to destroy an entire country using lies and half-truths to do it.

    A proud moment for Americans? I don’t think so but I am sure you will find a way to rationalize what Bush has done to Iraq.

  12. By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 12, 2008 | Reply

    No, Dusty, I’m not going to try to justify Bush’s actions. I disagree with lots of them, myself. It is equating a deliberate murderer/dictator with a leader whose misjudgments created havoc in Iraq seems odd to me, that’s all. Bush didn’t just wake up one day and decide to destroy Iraq, even if you take his critics’ criticisms as unquestionably true. Even if you count them equally guilty of some crime, I don’t see how you can count Bush equally guilty of crimes that are equally bad or that Bush’s actions are morally equivalent to Saddam’s…but I’m repeating myself. I’ll stop now and say ciao!

  13. By Dusty on Jul 12, 2008 | Reply

    a leader whose misjudgments created havoc in Iraq seems odd to me, that’s all.–Misjudgments? Thats what you call the lies that put our soldiers into Iraq?

    That would be funny if it wasn’t so damn disgusting Craig.

  14. By manapp99 on Jul 12, 2008 | Reply

    “Bush has managed to destroy an entire country using lies and half-truths to do it.”

    Yeah, Bush should have just left well enough alone as Saddam was already doing a good enough job destroying his own people. Not to mention the destruction he tried on his neighbors. Sheesh when will we learn to let other countries destroy each other and their own people and not meddle so much. I think Saddam taking over the middle east in his 1990’s push would have been as good for them as Hitlers plan to take over Europe would have been good for Europeans. Why did we stop Milosevic? Just because he was killing some of his own citiens? It is not as if he was dropping bombs on his country like we went and did.

  15. By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 12, 2008 | Reply

    Okay. You think it disgusting. Fine. Ciao!

  16. By Dusty on Jul 12, 2008 | Reply

    Manapp, if Bush was looking to take down a mean dictator, there are and were plenty that fit Saddam’s m.o. so don’t give me that “he was a horrible man” bs.

    Darfur is a good example. Do you have any idea how long that shit has been going on Manapp? Lets bring this back around to the post at hand dude.

  17. By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 12, 2008 | Reply

    An interesting thought occurred to me. Suppose the court does issue the warrant. Who do they contemplate executing said warrant and bringing him in? Any bets on whether China would let troops, however international in makeup, waltz up to the presidential residence and make the arrest?

    Mind you, I have no objections to arresting and trying him and any number of those committing crimes against humanity in that country. The Sudan isn’t likely to do that.

  18. By Dusty on Jul 12, 2008 | Reply

    From what I have read Craig, they would nab his worthless ass if he leaves his countries borders. They won’t go into Sudan to arrest him.

  19. By Dusty on Jul 12, 2008 | Reply

    China has protected this murderer all along Craig. Its all about the OIL again..which begs the question, why didn’t BUsh go after Al-Bashir instead of Saddam? It would of been an easier job I think, plus Osama used to hole up there until everyone pitched a fit and Sudan told him to leave.

  20. By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 12, 2008 | Reply


    Well, it would be a start but I doubt that it would have much practical effect in actually bringing him, or anyone else responsible, to justice. But symbolic acts are important.

    Plus, if there were a coup from within and Al Bashar had to flee, there might be a chance to bring him to justice if he didn’t make it to, well, China…

    I suspect he’ll live out his days contentedly, though, quite unperturbed by an indictment.

  21. By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 12, 2008 | Reply

    An easier job? Risking war with China?

  22. By Dusty on Jul 12, 2008 | Reply

    Well, leaving Sudan will not be an option for him if the ICC issues the warrant. At least I wouldn’t think so. Extraordinary Rendition isn’t out of the question if he leaves his country.

  23. By Dusty on Jul 12, 2008 | Reply

    Bush seems to have no fear..why wouldn’t he of gone into Sudan and occupied their nation?

    Oh..yeah he would of pissed off China and then who would loan us all that money to prop up our countries finances? ;)

  24. By manapp99 on Jul 12, 2008 | Reply

    If the war were about OIL, why didn’t Bush invade Saudi Arabia. Now THAT would have been easier. And they have the worlds largest reserves.

  25. By Dusty on Jul 12, 2008 | Reply

    lol..your serious manapp? The Bush family has a long and storied history with the Sheiks running Saudi Arabia.

  26. By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 12, 2008 | Reply

    Because absolutely nobody was willing to commit to action to save Saddam Hussein. Witness the fact that nobody did. Nobody had a strong enough interest in Saddam’s continued reign in Iraq to come to his aid/defense. What I’m saying is, I think China does and would. Heck, we can’t even receive the leader of Taiwan without risking an international incident. Imagine us militarily invading Sudan.

    But of course, there are all those loans that you mention. Just one more argument against the US militarily trying to take out Al Bashir.

    Heck, if it was just about oil, we could have invaded Canada! Who’d have stopped us? :-)

  27. By Dusty on Jul 12, 2008 | Reply

    Well, thats mostly conjecture on your part Craig.

    Sudan has been engaged in genocide for over five years now.

    Japan is complicit in the genocide as well..having purchased more of their oil from Sudan than any other country.

    Iraq was surrounded by our allies that looked the other way when Bush decided to invade. The Saudi’s and Kuwaiti’s just to name two were happy has hell that we invaded Iraq.

    Its all so fucked up..and the political reasons for why one country was invaded over another get pretty interesting.

    I am done here, have a good day Craig and manapp

Post a Comment