Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.
All you nay-sayers who thought he UN was good for Nothing
Published on February 1, 2005 By Dr Guy In Current Events

Yep, it is official as of today!  The UN has eradicated the genocide in Sudan!

How you righties might ask?

How indeed! They Pencil whipped it away!

Sudan's government and the Janjaweed militia are not guilty of genocide

How wonderful we have such a competant organization to protect us for the likes of the Hutus and Tutsis, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, and all the mad men of the world!  How magnificent they are to take care of the problems of the world with a U.N.-appointed panel.  This is truly momentous, and a day to rejoice!

Do you think the idiots on DU will be happy that their precious UN solved a problem that Bush could not?

Ya think?


Comments
on Feb 01, 2005
Bit of excessive use of sarcasm. Also bit off the truth.

The UN set up a legal panel to determine if what has occurred in Sudan can be classed as 'genocidal intent'. This is important as it would require certain reactions from all UN members. The answer however is no. It's a legal fact, not an emotional decision.

The report however does highlight that war crimes have taken place and names peopel it believes should be indicted on war crime charges. This is a serious charge and response and will lead to those responsible being tried for those charges. This is actually a step beyond what currently has been currently done in that it recommends named individuals be held responsible for these crimes.

Now hopefully the US and UN will act on this and set up an international court (or just use the ICC as that's what it was set up for) to issue arrest warrents for these individuals. Knowledge that individuals will be held accountable for their actions and inactions will go a long way towards ending this humanitarian catasrophy. What we need now are some immediate arrests.

Paul.
on Feb 01, 2005

 

Bit of excessive use of sarcasm. Also bit off the truth.

Excessive?  No, not nearly enough.

The UN set up a legal panel to determine if what has occurred in Sudan can be classed as 'genocidal intent'. This is important as it would require certain reactions from all UN members. The answer however is no. It's a legal fact, not an emotional decision.

Exactly!  They cant deal with it, so they change the definition!  Hey!  You are getting this sarcasm thing down pretty good!

Now hopefully the US and UN will act on this and set up an international court (or just use the ICC as that's what it was set up for) to issue arrest warrents for these individuals
 

Dont forget to read them their Miranda Rights!  What a joke!  You will note that none of my blog, or the resultant link refutes anything you said?  And that you merely punctuated the stupidiy of the decision?

Thank you for so eloquently making my point so much more relevant.

on Feb 01, 2005
This is how I see it. By saying it isn't genocide, it has no obligation to prevent it. After all, what made the situation in Bosnia any worse than the atrocities that are happening around the world? The genocide. Without the genocide, the UN can rationalize its inaction.
on Feb 02, 2005

Without the genocide, the UN can rationalize its inaction.


Very well put in few words.  Insightful.

on Feb 02, 2005
You get an "insightful" from me too Juxta!!

Great article Dr. Guy, thanks for bringing it to our attention. It looks like the UN eradicated genocide in Sudan with the same efficiency that the WHO used to free Toronto from SARS!!! ;~D
on Feb 03, 2005
so they change the definition


No they didn't. They would have had to have re-written the legal law to do what you want. That's the whole point, they applied the law as currently written. You condemn them for suppossedly changing the law when in fact your actually condemning them for NOT re-writing the law

You can't just bend the law to allow for Sudan to be described as governmental genocide. They were very clear that certain individuals may be considered guilty of genocide but that the government cannot be accused of such.

Don't let your hatred for the UN cloud your judgement of legal matters.

Paul.
on Feb 03, 2005

No they didn't. They would have had to have re-written the legal law to do what you want. That's the whole point, they applied the law as currently written.

You can't just bend the law to allow for Sudan to be described as governmental genocide. They were very clear that certain individuals may be considered guilty of genocide but that the government cannot be accused of such.

Don't let your hatred for the UN cloud your judgement of legal matters.


Anyone familiar with the situation knows that they changed the definition.  It is genocide. It is not arabs fighting arabs but 2 ethnic groups fighting, with the intention of one ethnic group, the ones controlling the government of Sudan, trying to erradicate the other, or enslave them.  And that is genocide.  Pure and simple.


You can split hairs all you want, but a duck is still a duck.  And the UN is just a farce that does nothing but duck and hide. 


And dont mistake or assume how I view the UN.  I dont hate them, any more than I hate france.  I just despise the spineless mealy mouth tin plated dictators that would terrorize their own citizenry, while condemning the rest of the world for trying to live in peace.  There is no hate.  Just contempt for an organization that would put Sudan on the Human Rights commission even while massive slaugher and slavery are a daily occurance in their own country.  How pathetic.  How small.

on Feb 03, 2005
This is as much Genocide as what happened in the Balkans. To a lesser degree, mind you, but in this case, as in Rwanda elitism and racism reign in UN policy. The Clinton administration made it a matter of policy to avoid the word "Genocide" when dealing with Rwanda in press conferences, and this is no different. Death's-head bureaucracy.
on Feb 03, 2005

The Clinton administration made it a matter of policy to avoid the word "Genocide" when dealing with Rwanda in press conferences, and this is no different. Death's-head bureaucracy.

Guess he was just practicing for the Sec Gen Position!  He was a real bad president, from every standpoint that one would call a hero.

on Feb 04, 2005
Anyone familiar with the situation knows that they changed the definition


??? Where do you get that from? Is it a completely baseless personal opinion or do you actually have some legal reasoning behind this accusation? The whole point of the five member panel was to determine if the atrocities in Sudan met the legal definition.

You are also ignoring the point that the panel found that the government itself was not guilty of genocidal intent but certain individuals may indeed be. Not only that but they have actually named individuals who they believe should be tried for such crimes.

Paul.
on Feb 04, 2005

??? Where do you get that from? Is it a completely baseless personal opinion or do you actually have some legal reasoning behind this accusation? The whole point of the five member panel was to determine if the atrocities in Sudan met the legal definition.

I told you in the very next sentence where I got that from.  Did you read the first sentence and then stop reading?

You are also ignoring the point that the panel found that the government itself was not guilty of genocidal intent but certain individuals may indeed be. Not only that but they have actually named individuals who they believe should be tried for such crimes.

You see that is just garbage.  By this definition, Nazi Germany was not guilty of genocide either as it was never the official position of the government, just a bunch of zealous individuals (Hitler being the top cur).  See how easy the UN just erased the Holocaust?

Pathetic.