July 14, 2008 at 7:45 AM EDT

THE HAGUE — The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court filed genocide charges Monday against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, accusing him of masterminding attempts to wipe out African tribes in Darfur with a campaign of murder, rape and deportation.

The filing marked the first time prosecutors at the world's first permanent, global war-crimes court have issued charges against a sitting head of state.

Luis Moreno-Ocampo asked a three-judge panel at the International Criminal Court to issue an arrest warrant for Mr. al-Bashir to prevent more deaths. About 2.5 million people have been forced from their homes in Darfur and are still under attack from government-backed janjaweed militia.

”Genocide is a crime of intention – we don't need to wait until these 2.5 million die,” he said in an interview with The Associated Press.

GLOBE

Tellingly, Moreno-Ocampo won't be prosecuting anyone for crimes in Iraq.

[ 14 July 2008: Message edited by: Mercy ]

I remember listening to a woman who was speaking in favourable terms of the ICC on CBC radio and she said with regard to Iraq and prosecutions of the Americans and British that it was not politically feasible.

quote:

---

The ICC has found another African to prosecute.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

I didn't know Milosevic was African.

---

Perhaps babblers are confusing the ICC with other tribunals?

1. The ICC has only ever launched investigations into four situations: Northern Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic and Darfur (Sudan).

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

2. The United States is very hostile to the ICC and has never recognized it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Perhaps babblers are confusing the ICC with other tribunals?

1. The ICC has only ever launched investigations into four situations: Northern Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic and Darfur (Sudan).

2. The United States is very hostile to the ICC and has never recognized it.

---

I believe I am one of the confused then - what court procesulted Milosovic?

ETA:

Nevermind, got the answer on cbc.ca. It was a special tribunal set up by the UN. Ditto for Charles Taylor.

[ 14 July 2008: Message edited by: Ghislaine ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RationalThought:
Which means the ICC is a 'good thing', thus its charging the President of Sudan with genocide is also a good thing.

---

quote:

---

Which means the ICC is a 'good thing', thus its charging the President of Sudan with genocide is also a good thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RationalThought:

Which means the ICC is a 'good thing', thus its charging the President of Sudan with genocide is also a good thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Because the US is hostile to the ICC doesn't automatically make the ICC a good thing. Charging the president of Sudan is probably a good thing. The danger of the ICC is that it represents rich, white justice against poor, black nations.

When the ICC announces an investigation into the administration and crimes of Bush and Blair and Israel, I will have a new found confidence.

---

The, often well-intentioned, people who advocate for it claim that this represents progress. They argue that if they're allowed to bring down SOME people for international crimes that's better than bringing down none at all.

However, the people they "bring down" were inevitably going down anyway and, in practical terms, the only thing "international justice" provides is a more respectable forum than the traditional kangaroo court.

quote:

---

In addition to often overt bias on the part of human rights groups, they have also demonstrated considerable hypocrisy with regard to Darfur. Scores of Sudanese soldiers and policemen have been killed in tribal clashes and while trying to apprehend those suspected, including "Janjaweed", of criminal acts. While claiming that the Arab "Janjaweed" raiders are sponsored by the government, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International ignore the fact that the government has regularly taken very firm action against "Arab" tribesmen who have attacked "African" communities. In April 2003, for example, Sudanese courts sentenced 24 Arab armed bandits to death for their involvement in the murder of 35 African villagers in attacks on pastoralist villages. Judge Mukhtar Ibrahim Adam described the attacks as "barbaric and savage conduct" reminiscent of "the dark ages". In a further example of the government's firm stance, in October 2003, 14 other Arab tribesmen were also sentenced to death for the murder of non-Arab villagers during attacks and arson within villages in south Darfur state. There is also abundant evidence of the sorts of lawlessness that has plagued Darfur, including considerable "Arab" on "Arab" violence. In one incident alone in May 2002, as reported by the UN media service, 50 Arab tribesmen were killed in such clashes between the Arab Rizayqat and Ma'aliyah tribes. (Would this qualify as '"Janjaweed" on "Janjaweed"' violence?) A special criminal court sentenced 86 Rizayqat tribesmen to death for involvement in the murder of these members of the Ma'aliyah tribe (the sentences are still pending appeals).

The stance of the human rights industry on criminal violence in Darfur has been contradictory. Amnesty International, for example, has previously criticised government inaction in responding to the violence and banditry in the region. In February 2003 Amnesty International stated that "government responses to armed clashes have been ineffective". Amnesty has then condemned the government for taking measures to restore order, such as arresting tribesmen suspected of involvement in violence. The scale of the violence had led to Khartoum introducing special measures, including the declaration of a state of emergency and the establishment of eight special criminal courts created by presidential decree to deal with offences such as murder, tribal clashes, armed robbery, arson and the smuggling of weapons. These courts have subsequently handed down stiff sentences. Yet these actions have also been criticised by Amnesty International. And at the same time these measures are being taken by Khartoum against the very Arab tribesmen that it is alleged the government are militarily supporting.

---

[ 14 July 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

The International Criminal Court's prosecutor appears to be on the verge of a fateful decision: whether to issue an indictment against Sudan's president Omar al-Bashir for his alleged activities in Darfur. The indictment, if it comes as expected on Monday, still has to be upheld by an ICC tribunal. The next stage would be for the Security Council to decide what action to take to implement an arrest warrant. Even if vetoed, as it probably would be by either Russia or China or both, the existence of an ICC arrest warrant in itself would make it hard for Bashir to travel abroad….

Who would benefit from this? Almost no one. The conflict in Darfur is too complex and the attempts to resolve it are too delicate for so one-sided and blunt an approach. The two previous cases where incumbent presidents were indicted by international courts (though not the ICC) were very different from Sudan. The Yugoslav president, Slobodan Milosevic, was under military attack from Nato. Negotiations had been cut off. Ultimately, they were renewed but only with the good offices of the Russians who had shown no enthusiasm for the Hague tribunal's indictment. Charles Taylor, the Liberian president, was indicted by a special hybrid court for his activities across the border in Sierra Leone and at a time when the two countries were virtually at war.

The conflict in Darfur is essentially an internal issue with multiple facets, involving the government and various rebel groups, as well as criss-crossing tribal disputes. Atrocities have been committed on all sides. The degree of blame, the extent of the killing and the number of victims are hotly disputed…. As for the chance of finding a political solution to the Darfur crisis, the AU and UN are conducting fitful talks with Darfur's rebels in the hope of getting them to resume negotiations with the government. How could the mediators expect to persuade the rebels to be reasonable if the other side's president has been charged with war crimes?

Nor is Darfur the only seat of tension in Sudan. The peace deal between north and south, which ended a conflict that went on longer than Darfur's, is still fragile. What would happen to the coalition government that currently runs Sudan in preparation for a referendum on the south's potential secession? Could the Sudanese People's Liberation Movement remain in government with a party whose leader has been indicted? What of the road map for the disputed province of Abyei under which UN troops now patrol an area where there was high tension earlier this year? Would UNMIS have to freeze its contacts with Bashir?

---

quote:

---

The danger of the ICC is that it represents rich, white justice against poor, black nations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

How do we know that all the judges that sit on the ICC are from "rich, white nations"? I assume that they are from all over the world and that there is a panel that includes judges from poor nations (some Black and some other colours too).

---

While I still think the ICC is an exercise in irrelevant futility and that they should just leave the AU to do what they decide, Stockholm is right.

the ICC site lists the following as presidents:

quote:

---

Judge Philippe Kirsch (Canada) as President,
Judge Akua Kuenyehia (Ghana) as First Vice-President,
Judge René BLATTMANN (Bolivia) as Second Vice-President

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
How do we know that all the judges that sit on the ICC are from "rich, white nations"? I assume that they are from all over the world and that there is a panel that includes judges from poor nations (some Black and some other colours too).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
As usual, your penetrating analysis fails to recognize the obvious.

The colour of the judges' skin doesn't determine the kind of justice handed out. Do you imagine that Clarence Thomas doesn't participate in dispensing rich, white justice against poor black people?

---

Okay, M. Spector that is racist. The colour of one's skin does not pre-determine their political views or legislative views. Just what is rich, white justice in your view? Would you as a white person somehow be able to dole out justice against poor, black people?

For the record, here the
list of countries that have signed the Rome Statute.

quote:

---

Out of them 30 are African States, 13 are Asian States, 16 are from Eastern Europe, 22 are from Latin America and the Caribbean, and 25 are from Western Europe and other States.

---

A lot of people pushing for the creation of the international justice system, as I noted, are very well-intentioned, good people. They come from all corners of the world.

The problem is with the people who are exempted from it's purview. It's (to use a Stockholmism) "rich white people's" justice because when powerful people commit crimes they are, in practical terms, immune from prosecution.

[ 14 July 2008: Message edited by: Mercy ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
Okay, M. Spector that is racist. The colour of one's skin does not pre-determine their political views or legislative views.

---

Is that not exactly the point I was making when I said "The colour of the judges' skin doesn't determine the kind of justice handed out"?

quote:

---

How do we know that all the judges that sit on the ICC are from "rich, white nations"? I assume that they are from all over the world and that there is a panel that includes judges from poor nations (some Black and some other colours too).

---

Because, if you can't prosecute George Bush, I guess it should be open to everyone to torture their opponents.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

So if Barack Obama is elected he will be governing a rich, black country, correct? Analysis for you, I guess, is only ever skin-color deep.

---

Actually, if you read what I wrote - my point was that analysis should not only be skin-deep.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
The dichotomy of rich/white versus black/poor is increasinly irrelevant in terms of justice.... I just think ideology is the more relevant point of analysis, and we cannot assume that someone will or should subscribe to a particular ideology just due to their race or due to them being part of an oppressed group.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
You just don't get the fact that "rich, white justice" is an ideological concept, and exists quite independently of the colour of the judge's skin.

The dichotomy between rich/white and black/poor is increasingly relevant to an ideological analysis of justice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
So the usual suspects think that no one should ever be prosecuted for war crimes?

Because, if you can't prosecute George Bush, I guess it should be open to everyone to torture their opponents.

This is just pathetic. It could have been used to apologize for Hitler, because "you're not going to prosecute Stalin, he's a victor".

---

As usual Jeff House chooses to misrepresent the argument rather than participate in it. And look, he has raised the name of Hitler.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
If the ideology behind that particular justice system is one that operates to the benefit of the rich and the white, and to the detriment of the poor and the black, then it makes perfect sense to name it "rich/white justice".

Duh!

---

D'OH - the Western countries that you call rich and white are actually quote diverse. Those that benefit from that ideology are actually quite diverse racially as well. Do you know that China supplies arms to the Sudan, do you know that their GDP will surpass the US in 2009? Do you know that they are not white for the most part?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

As usual Jeff House chooses to misrepresent the argument rather than participate in it. And look, he has raised the name of Hitler.

What is pathetic is Jeff House. He is no longer even worthy of thoughtful response. One would like to think, however, he would have a rudimentary understanding of history. Hitler was never prosecuted.

---

Hitler wasn't prosecuted? He killed himself before he could be! His army surrendered as they were being beaten by the Allied Forces. There is no Western allied army going into the Sudan - so your analogy that "Hitler wasn't prosecuted" is irrelevant.

At the risk of encouraging him, I'll note that Hitler was never tried for his crimes. Even if he had been the point would have been moot, I think, since he only would have gone to trial after he was effectively deposed.

What we currently have, however, is a variation on victor's justice. I won't shed any tears for the Milosevics but I won't get all gooey for an international justice system that doesn't exist.

A hypothetical: if 90 per cent of Canadians were completely immune from prosecution would you say that Canada had a justice system?

[ 14 July 2008: Message edited by: Mercy ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercy:
The first person to raise "rich" or "white" was Stockholm. I agree we shouldn't use it. It's inaccurate.

At the risk of encouraging him, I'll note that Hitler was never tried for his crimes. Even if he had been the point would have been moot, I think, since he only would have gone to trial after he was effectively deposed.

What we currently have, however, is a variation on victor's justice. I won't shed any tears for the Milosevics but I won't get all gooey for an international justice system that doesn't exist.

A hypothetical: if 90 per cent of Canadians were completely immune from prosecution would you say that Canada had a justice system?

[ 14 July 2008: Message edited by: Mercy ]

---

quote:

---

Hitler wasn't prosecuted? He killed himself before he could be!

---

quote:

---

The first person to raise "rich" or "white" was Stockholm

---

On the other hand, even if China is engaged in arms exports, what state has always stood in the way of global treaties to end or curtail the trade in arms to both states and non-state (terrorists) actors? Here is a hint: It was not China.

quote:

---

A hypothetical: if 90 per cent of Canadians were completely immune from prosecution would you say that Canada had a justice system?

---

[ 14 July 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

So, Mr. Mess thinks that Sudanese killers should not be subjected to trial at the international war crimes tribunal?

Well, of course! And that allows all of George Bush's apologists to make the same argument for him. "No fair" "They're biased!"

quote:

---

Yes, it really is pathetic that people think that war criminals should not be prosecuted.

---

[ 14 July 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

Because, if you can't prosecute George Bush, I guess it should be open to everyone to torture their opponents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
Yes, it really is pathetic that people think that war criminals should not be prosecuted.

---

Okay it's settled then. We should start off by hauling in Uribe and half of his U.S.-backed death squad government and arraign them on crimes against humanity.

Juan Efrain Rios Montt, a former U.S.-backed death squad government el presidente, is still running around Guatemala free as bird.

Perhaps, in the meantime, Canada's government could resume it's goals of eliminating 3 ethnic groups; to show the world Canada really means business this time... non of that wishy-washy-feel-good stuff Canada did in the past, eh?

We must demonstrate our sovereignty and national unity by showing the world that we are not the United States' lapdogs, while at the same time consolidating wealth and power for Canada's white society.

Canada is very capable of engaging in institutionalised genocide without the support of the United States.

Let's not loose enthusiasm this time lads!

[ 14 July 2008: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TemporalHominid:
We must not interrupt President Omar al-Bashir's important work in eliminating 3 ethnic groups.

---

The U.S. has been interested in Sudan since the discovery of oil in that country.

The people who do the killing should be arrested, tried, and convicted.

quote:

---

We must not interrupt President Omar al-Bashir's important work in eliminating 3 ethnic groups.

Perhaps, in the meantime, Canada's government could resume it's goals of eliminating 3 ethnic groups; to show the world Canada really means business this time... non of that wishy-washy-feel-good stuff Canada did in the past, eh?

We must demonstrate our sovereignty and national unity by showing the world that we are not the United States' lapdogs, while at the same time consolidating wealth and power for Canada's white society.

Canada is very capable of engaging in institutionalised genocide without the support of the United States.

Let's not loose enthusiasm this time lads!

---

Do you recognize the style of debate, Mr. House? One could say it is a total misrepresentation of the argument. It could be characterized as lying. Or maybe it is best characterized as trolling. But he isn't alone in that style of debate, is he Mr. House.

So let me ask you Mr. House, who, in this thread, said war criminals should not be prosecuted? name them. You get away with trolling and misrepresenting what people actually say and you claim some high and mighty moralistic position. Your values are no better than mine. You have no superior moral authority. You are a jerk.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

So let's have at it, shall we? Who said what? Who, precisely, said war criminals should not be prosecuted?

---

No one but that's the insinuation, isn't it? If you do not support this prosecution, you are enabling criminals. It's a disingenuous argument. Further, why even bother with an ICC prosecution when some posters have already played judge and jury as far as Omar al-Bashir's guilt is concerned.

I suggest that the articles M. Spector posted be read before coming to the conclusion that al-Bashir be executed.

Deliberately misleading the international community

Atrocities have been committed on all sides

[ 14 July 2008: Message edited by: laine lowe ]

[ 14 July 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RationalThought:
Which means the ICC is a 'good thing', thus its charging the President of Sudan with genocide is also a good thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
This demonstrates the absurdity of formal logic.

---

It's not even "formal logic".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Only fools or idiots fail to understand a simple argument. Here is an example of one fool or idiot:

Do you recognize the style of debate, Mr. House? ?

---

...but I've got enthusiasm, focus, and an Anti-american stance... that's all I need to consolidate power for the privileged white society in Canada.

The ends justify the means, always.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

The enemy of my enemy of my enemy of my enemy of my enemy is my headache.

---

I think this pretty much sums up the situation for the world community and more specifically for the African Unions

I suspect that foreign policy of nations
takes into account that the world community, and individual sovereign countries do not want to isolate and alienate the U.S.A. or China; and the African Nations do not want to isolate and alienate Sudan (for economic, trade, practical, diplomatic and security reasons)

If Tony Blair and George Bush were dragged into a world court, the Americans and Brits would be alienated... it's too great a risk. Ditto in regards to Sudan's pres.

Did the west contribute to Sudan's and Zimbabwe's and Rwanda's current situations? yes, undoubtedly. Will we be holding anyone in the west responsible in an world court. Never.

Does it look like a double standard? Yes.

Are nations and the world community or continental unions going to press the issue? No

Will genocide continue to disturb people. Yes.

Human beings are full of contradictions.

of note, in relation to CPPCG / ICoJ : signatories of CPPCG are required to prevent and punish acts of genocide, both in peace and wartime. The Catch: some of the signatories — Bahrain, Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, the United States, Vietnam, Yemen, and Yugoslavia — signed with the proviso that no claim of genocide could be brought against them at the International Court of Justice without their consent

[ 15 July 2008: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

quote:

---

I have no sympathy for people who make others suffer. Nevertheless, I wonder at the International Criminal Court’s pick from the assortment of war criminals? Why al-Bashir?

Is it because Sudan is a powerless state, and the International Criminal Court hasn’t the courage to name George W. Bush and Tony Blair as war criminals?

Bush and Blair’s crimes against humanity in Iraq and Afghanistan dwarf, at least in the number of deaths and displaced persons, the terrible situation in Darfur. The highest estimate of Darfur casualties is 400,000, one-third the number of Iraqis who have died as a result of Bush’s invasion. Moreover, the conflict in the Sudan is an internal one, whereas Bush illegally invaded two foreign countries, war crimes under the Nuremberg Standard. Bush’s war crimes were enabled by the political leaders of the UK, Spain, Canada, and Australia. The leaders of every member of the “coalition of the willing to commit war crimes” are candidates for the dock.

But of course the Great Moral West does not commit war crimes. War crimes are charges fobbed off on people demonized by the Western media, such as the Serbian Milosovic and the Sudanese al-Bashir.

Every week the Israeli government evicts Palestinians from their homes, steals their land, and kills Palestinian women and children. These crimes against humanity have been going on for decades. Except for a few Israeli human rights organizations, no one complains about it. Palestinians are defined as “terrorists,” and “terrorists” can be treated inhumanely without complaint.

Iraqis and Afghans suffer the same fate. Iraqis who resist US occupation of their country are “terrorists.” Taliban is a demonized name. Every Afghan killed--even those attending wedding parties--is claimed to be Taliban by the US military. Iraqis and Afghans can be murdered at will by American and NATO troops without anyone raising human rights issues.

The International Criminal Court is a bureaucracy. It has a budget, and it needs to do something to justify its budget. Lacking teeth and courage, it goes after the petty war criminals and leaves the big ones alone.

---

This is no small achievement.

But it is true that Bush, Cheney, Addington, etc. have not been charged, probably because they are too powerful.

So, the trick is NOT to let all the other torturers off the hook, but demand that Bush, Cheney, Addington, etc. also face charges.

Here is what the group "After Downing Street" is doing:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/icc

quote:

---

Dear Chief Prosecutor,

Congratulations on your request for an arrest warrant for the president of Sudan. When the rule of law cannot be justly enforced within a nation, it must be enforced internationally. In that regard, I would like to recommend that you seek an arrest warrant for the president of my nation, the United States of America.

---

This is the correct approach, not working to undermine the ICC on the pretext that "Not everyone is prosecuted".

And I think Bugliosi said there's room for Dybya and Cheney on the list of those who should be arraigned on charges of crimes against humanity, genocide etc.

There are dozens of former brutal right wing dictators and their killers for hire who were propped up by the "democratic" west still slithering around. Justice delayed is justice denied.

eta: Skool of the Americas, the world's foremost university for export of torture and terror wants shutting down for all time.

[ 16 July 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
The International Criminal Court has dealt with war criminals like Milosevic, Dudic, and others who murdered their way across their countries.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
The ICC has only ever launched investigations into four situations: Northern Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic and Darfur (Sudan).

---

quote:

---

Moreover, it would surprise no one if the human rights lawyers at the ICC were to follow their cousins at the UN Human Rights Council in exercising political bias. While Omar al-Bashir seems like an appropriate head of state to target, tribunals exercising universal criminal jurisdiction in Belgium and elsewhere have levelled indictments against the likes of George H. W. Bush for alleged misconduct during the first Persian Gulf War. And in case the political slant of the human rights field wasn't obvious enough, the ICC includes in its definition of crimes against humanity not just mass murder, rape and torture, but the building of settlements in occupied territories. Guess who they have in mind.

While the United States has sought to avoid such manipulations by refusing to ratify the ICC treaty, all the ICC needs for jurisdiction is for a country in which a violent event takes place -- Afghanistan, to name one obvious candidate -- to be a party to the treaty. Needless to say, where the U. S. president goes, the Canadian prime minister may not be far behind. All it takes is a zealous prosecutor with the right political bent.

All of which brings us back to the danger of trusting this kind of international body with a field of law designed to maximize criminal convictions. Sudan's al-Bashir may be a good start. The question is: Where will it all end?

---

The National Post is a pretty far right newspaper.

Here is the core of Prof. Morgan's objection:

quote:

---

While Omar al-Bashir seems like an appropriate head of state to target, tribunals exercising universal criminal jurisdiction in Belgium and elsewhere have levelled indictments against the likes of George H.W. Bush for alleged misconduct during the first Persian Gulf War. And in case the political slant of the human rights field wasn’t obvious enough, the ICC includes in its definition of crimes against humanity not just mass murder, rape and torture, but the building of settlements in occupied territories. Guess who they have in mind.

---

quote:

---

I don’t care about international law. I don’t want to hear the words ‘international law’ again. We are not concerned about international law. – US military judge in Guantánamo Bay

---

Our own stooges in Ottawa in two successive governments said to let American law deal with Omar Khadr. What they failed to realize is, there is no law at Gitmo Bay, the illegal and immoral U.S. naval base for torture and basic human rights violations.

quote:

---

For those of you who think that Darfur is the only killing field for Omar Hassan al-Bashir, the indicted President of Sudan, let me add a note for the record.

In the mid-to-late 1990s, I was the deputy executive director at Unicef; in that capacity, I attended the annual meetings of the Organization of African Unity. The presidents, all men of course, gathered together in a bizarre ritual of camaraderie around the conference table, despots and democrats alike, achieving little or nothing of note, but greatly enjoying an orgy of self-congratulation. Even though the continent was falling apart in places, you'd never have known it from the OAU.

The value in attending lay solely in the opportunity to meet with the leaders to discuss problems that might have relevance to one's own organization and its work. For Unicef, one problem transcended all others: the abduction of thousands of children from their homes and boarding schools in Northern Uganda by the lunatic rebel group (still extant) called the Lord's Resistance Army, and the forced transport of the children to what amounted to prison camps in Sudan. In the camps, the girls were routinely raped and the boys were trained to become child soldiers.

Somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 were abducted over the past 10 to 15 years. It is estimated that a third are dead, a third are lost forever in the bowels of Sudan and a third managed to escape back to Uganda. I've interviewed many of the escapees: You cannot imagine children more abused, scarred, mutilated, traumatized and robbed of their childhood.

The entire operation was sustained by an unholy pact between Mr. al-Bashir and Joseph Kony, the madman who leads the Lord's Resistance Army, and who also, appropriately, has been indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court.

My job at the OAU on two occasions, once in Zimbabwe, and once in Burkina Faso, was to meet with Mr. al-Bashir and beg him to stop collaborating with the LRA and to return the children.

---

quote:

---

The entire operation was sustained by an unholy pact between Mr. al-Bashir and Joseph Kony, the madman who leads the Lord's Resistance Army, and who also, appropriately, has been indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

So Sudan's President was engaged in a criminal conspiracy to commit war crimes, according to Stephen Lewis.

---