Sudanese President charged with Genocide

by Sceptic Sat Jul 19, 2008 15:20

"And no, Pol Pot could not have happened without the destruction unleashed on Cambodia by Kissinger."

- This kind of groundless assertion does not challenge the points I have already made in this discussion on this subject. Not least because a US cabinet officer cannot begin a war by himself. This old canard about Pol Pot has to be challenged for the reaons I outlined abive.

by What's this about Sat Jul 19, 2008 02:37

"If 'Mise Le Meas' is interested in fake Lefties and pretend socialists, especially in cultural Ireland, it wouldn't be had to draw up a list! The genuine ones have been reviled, especially in the political kindergarten that is Galway. There are those there who have fooled people quite successfully, especially the politically immature, and for their own advancement."

What is all this about?

Who are these 'fake lefties'?

And in what way are they "quite successfully" achieving "their own advancement" by doing this fake leftie thing?

by Mea Culpa Fri Jul 18, 2008 23:08

If 'Mise Le Meas' is interested in fake Lefties and pretend socialists, especially in cultural Ireland, it wouldn't be had to draw up a list! The genuine ones have been reviled, especially in the political kindergarten that is Galway. There are those there who have fooled people quite successfully, especially the politically immature, and for their own advancement. But let's not go there now: if we are going to start calling for indictments against terrorist politicians let's go all the way and leave none out of the loop. And no, Pol Pot could not have happened without the destruction unleashed on Cambodia by Kissinger.

by Sceptic Fri Jul 18, 2008 19:56

Where indeed? That is the usual far left refrain as an attempted invalidation. You cannot abide the idea of a non-western political leader as a miscreant in international criminal law.

The ICC is an independent body. One can only assume that its lawyers see no case whatever against these people. If you look up the law yourself you will see it is correct. If you think the law should be different you should press that matter elsewhere but why LOL at such indictments as it does bring against such a major and bloody criminal? Are you saying this figure should not be brought to account because in your view others should be brought to account for things that are not against international law? There is no sense in that.

There are two aspects to an indictment for crimes against humanity - the practical one of trying the person and the issue of principle of the indictment even if the suspect cannot be tried. I don't see what is funny about that or that someone called Blair is writing on this case. However your mental idiosyncrasies and poor quality of advocacy are not my concern.

by publo Fri Jul 18, 2008 07:32

On the subject of the indictment of Bashir for genocide see William Schabas's - Prof of Human Rights in Galway - blog: http://humanrightsdoctorate.blogspot.com/

by Hugh Briss - SMERSH Thu Jul 17, 2008 20:02

Sceptic said: . .

Even if he never faces charges there is a basic act of moral hygiene to indict such an odious war monger and director of mass killings and rape. It is an important issue of principle.

ohhhh . . . it sure is!

I read this the other day . . .

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/majornews/2301474/Sudan....html)
Sudanese dictator Omar al-Bashir faces war crimes charges

By David Blair, Diplomatic Editor

Last Updated: 10:54AM BST 15/07/2008

Sudan's military dictator was accused of "genocide" and "crimes against humanity" when the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court held him responsible for Darfur's bloodshed.

and thought to myself 'How can a guy named Blair write such drivel with a straight face?

I guess he drinks the same kool-aid you do, Sceptic.

' . . . a matter of principle . . . .' haaaa haaaaahaaaaa too funny. Thanks for that . . . I needed a good laugh

If we're gonna start finally going after killers why not start with the most egregious examples? Then maybe I could believe you're serious and not just acting as point man for neo-liberal takeovers of small 3rd world countries. Where are the Bush/Blair indictments?

by Sceptic Thu Jul 17, 2008 19:23

Posting Pilger’s colourful polemic is not debate – it is a cop out. It does not deal with the points I have made. Pilger’s work is opinion and propaganda and has been going on with the same lurid US hating drumbeat since the 60’s. He seems to have convinced himself so much of the American evil in the 1960s that when he witnessed the real evil and concrete evil of Pol Pot his only response was to blame the US for the actions of its mortal enemies and not those who in fact executed the crimes of the regime. O r those who supported them in China or the armchair revolutionaries safely in the west probably enjoying tenure at a French or American university.

This particular meme about Kissinger exists only in corners of the western far left. It is not found in the former eastern block or in Asia itself. Travel to Vietnam or Cambodia – the people are quite pro American and even in Cambodia there is no blame for the US for the horrors of the Pol Pot regime. Unbounded savagery and genocide was as much a feature of Asian communism as it was Russian. The US lost many men trying to keep communism from spreading in the region. They left and spread it did. Blaming the US for the crimes of the communists is absurd except that we have got used to the idea because Pilger has been banging on about it for more than 30 years.

Note that the ICC does not have retrospective jurisdiction. Also that the fact that Sudan is not a signatory does not mean its current president could not be surrendered by a future regime or by another government or could not be rendered to The Hague to face charges for his crimes. Even if he never faces charges there is a basic act of moral hygiene to indict such an odious war monger and director of mass killings and rape. It is an important issue of principle.

by Mark C Thu Jul 17, 2008 08:43

Perhaps the best documentary ever made (certainly the most interesting one I've seen) is John Pilger's documentary about Cambodia, American Foreign Policy, Henry Kissinger, Pol Pot, Khmer Rouge (in no particular order): Cambodia: Year Zero.

Available to watch for free here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-91591648592386...59487

by Sceptic Wed Jul 16, 2008 20:30

“Without Kissinger's actions in Cambodia there would have been no Pol Pot.”

Sorry lads I cannot let that one go for these reasons:

• It is much more accurate to say without Mao there would have been no Pol Pot – he was the Cambodian equivalent across the border and was supported and maintained by Peking.

• The moral responsibility for the genocide of Pol Pot lies with Pol Pot himself and his cadres and the aforementioned Chinese plus the peculiar notions and variants of Marxism swirling around China and in the French academy in the mid 20th century.

• HK was not operating an independent foreign policy – he was purely an instrument of the presidents he served – Nixon and Ford. One cannot separate him out personally from the administrations.

• What destabilized the Cambodian monarchy was not Kissinger but the decision of Hanoi to use Cambodian territory in prosecuting their war on the south. It was this that provoked Nixon to extend the war into Cambodia.

• In any case K was the diplomatic arm of the administration not the military. He won a Nobel prize for his efforts by the way.

• One can look at things the other way – Pol Pot was the type of perverted communist monster who could only have come about because of US withdrawal from the region accompanied by increases soviet and Chinese hegemony in Indo China. Cambodia was a humane and civilized place by regional standards under the pro western monarchy and Lon Nol regimes.

by Mise Le Meas Wed Jul 16, 2008 14:17

if these people had ever had a bad word to say about Milosevic, Sadaam, China and the lot of them.

At Mary Kelly's trial, one of her supporters was Ramsay Clark.
http://www.counterpunch.org/browne07232003.html

The same Ramsay Clark went to Slobadon Milosevic's funeral in Belgrade and gave a eulogy.
see here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4819158.stm

by pat c Wed Jul 16, 2008 13:13

I dont think Fred is protecting any tyrants, hes just putting things in perspective. Its unlikely that Bush, Cheny, Kissinger, Blair, Brown et al will ever face justice before the ICC.

Bashir is a thug as is Ahmadinejad they both deserve to be tried for crimes against humanity. But so do Bush and Blair and assorted Israeli prime ministers.

by Mise Le Meas Wed Jul 16, 2008 13:03

I was only asking you to speak for yourself.

Isn't it great the way the so-called left suddenly come over all equivocal when asked to clearly condemn a tyrant and mass-murderer who happens not to be a US lackey, and so they drag in Cheney and all the rest to try and dodge giving a simple yes or no.

by Fred Johnston Wed Jul 16, 2008 11:51

Sorry, mate. You're behaving now like a policeman. I speak only for myself. Who are you, by the way - a bit of courage with so many questions wouldn't go amiss.

by Mise Le Meas Wed Jul 16, 2008 00:27

No problem with asking straight questions of the defenders of Cheney, Kissinger and co. They should go to the Hague also.

But, so we're clear, you are saying that you think the Sudanese President has a case to answer regarding genocide and war crimes in Darfur? (these are the charges against him)

Does this mean that you disagree with the SWP's attempt to minimise what is going on in Darfur i.e. to pretend it isn't government sponsored genocide?

by Fred Johnston Wed Jul 16, 2008 00:21

No, I am not. Now I do hope you will immediately set up a campaign to have Dick Cheney charged with war crimes - he is already working out how an excuse can be devised to attack Iran - and with him Kissinger, George W. Bush and the man who ordered the massacres of Sabra and Shatila camps. And I trust you will ask similarly straight questions of anyone who opposes your actions.

by Mise Le Meas Wed Jul 16, 2008 00:15

As I said, I agree about Kissinger.

But are you opposed to the arrest and trial of Omar al-Bashir?

Yes or no.

by Fred Johnston Wed Jul 16, 2008 00:12

I am saying that we have been very choosy about whom we extradited for war crimes in the past, and whom we charged with war crimes, depending on how it suited our political ends at the time. Without Kissinger's actions in Cambodia there would have been no Pol Pot. If you are going to start charging people with war crimes, let's go the whole hog and leave no one out. Shabra and Shatila, for instance?

by Mise Le Meas Tue Jul 15, 2008 23:54

I agree, Henry Kissinger should also be taken for trial to the Hague.

But what about Omar al-Bashir?

Are you really saying he should be let go free?

Are you okay with him having santioned a campaign of rape and extermination in Darfur?

by Fred Johnston Tue Jul 15, 2008 19:19

Is this a surprise? The US doesn't either. And no effort has ever been made to extradite Henry Kissinger over Cambodia. Let's not jump too high in the air with glee at this latest 'finding.' We aren't too good at hunting down war criminals connected to big powers. As for what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians . . . .

by Perplexed Tue Jul 15, 2008 19:08

Why should al-Bashir care less?

What are the World Court going to do next?

Tickle him to death?

"How many divisions has the Pope?" asked Joseph Stalin.