In an act of self-condemnation, the Arab League has denounced the genocide charges and defended Sudan’s president Omar al-Bashir. Many of these 22 countries engage in rampant abuses and torture. While they expressed fears of danger to national sovereignty, there is no doubt a fair measure of concern over their own acts of abuses.
The group held an emergency council to support al-Bashir, who remains one of the most vile figures in the world. Notably, the group could not get itself to describe the charges of organized murder and rape — it merely defended al-Bashir.
For the full story, click here.
I really wish the whiners in America would take a look around and realize that, but for the Grace of God, there are they.
America is God’s gift to the world of freedom & strength. Those that continually try to tear it down by usurping law based on their own pointless & Godless beliefs are serving these despots.
The saddest point of this is the two percenters here would rather see George Bush in schackles in some world court, a man who has freed more people in this world than anyone in modern times, than terrorist supporting thugs like Al-Arian.
OK, fairly close to the entire civilized world despises the actions of these thug rulers; that’s pretty much a no-brainer. The real issue is that, per the Rome Statute, the ICC only has jurisdiction among the nations who signed the Statute – and the ICC – into existence. The ICC has no legal authority over Sudan or its government.
Now, it’s true that the UN has granted authority over the matter to the ICC but that is not a lawful order in an of itself. That’s just a bit of diplomatic sophistry in an attempt to rationalize what could be considered and act of war.
The idea that “we must stop the genocide in Sudan by any means necessary” has a disturbing ring to it.
As I said earlier, the saddest point of this is the two percenters here would rather see George Bush in schackles in some world court, a man who has freed more people in this world than anyone in modern times, than terrorist supporting thugs like Al-Arian.
martha h:
“I really wish the whiners in America would take a look around and realize that, but for the Grace of God, there are they.
America is God’s gift to the world of freedom & strength. Those that continually try to tear it down by usurping law based on their own pointless & Godless beliefs are serving these despots.”
**********************
As I was reading this drivel, I could hear the fifes whistling and the drums beating out “Yankee Doodle Dandy.” Samuel Johnson is right even today. Patriotism is still “the last refuge of scoundrels.”
Maybe one day you’ll learn that real patriotism, like real parenting, means pointing out and correcting the wrongs perpetrated the entities that you are charged with rearing and protecting. Bush is not our Daddy, he’s our servant. Stop the hero worship; it’s un-American.
mespo your drivel is the height of insanity.
Your idea of patriotism is being married to liberals that look the other way when liberals usurp the Constitution and scream & whine when they think there is even the barest of evidence conservatives are guilty of even less.
This is like a conversation between John Locke and Peewee Herman. Martha, do you know which one you are?
It’s closer to an argument between Peewee Herman and himself. Neither of the principles have showed showed much in the way discourse or eloquence. That is to be expected when two such as Martha and Mespo clash.
Martha rightfully loves America and brings up the valid point that signatories to the Rome Statute would prefer to use it against America than the Sudan. Mespo has always seemed to hate America as a nation and a culture, preferring it seems a global government in which the US is a minority shareholder. I believe he would like our government to be arrested and tried in a foreign court. Both viewpoints have their basis in a mixture of facts and beliefs, and neither one is going to budge an inch on them.
Whether either one is right or wrong is immaterial though. The ICC has overstepped its authority and should not be allowed to continue doing so for the sake of the sovereignty of ALL nations.
jonolan:
Nope, not the entire government just the war criminals. Wonder where you learned this simplistic, “if you don’t love it, leave it mentality?” Merle Haggard? martha h? May I also suggest a new moniker for you too. How about “jingoistlan?” And by the way, you can use the Rome statute wherever it applies.
Lindy Lou:
I am hoping for the Pee Wee Herman role. I always liked those nifty bow ties.
Mespo,
And those cute high water pants. I just have a hard time imagining your usual retort being “I know you are, but what am I.”
Lindy Lou:
Darn, I wish I would have thought of that. My hat’s off to you. Honk! Honk!
Mespo,
Whether you like my beliefs or not means nothing, just as whether I like your beliefs means nothings. What matters is the state of international law and the attempts to remove nations sovereignty.
And yes, “you can use the Rome statute wherever it applies” due to certain paragraphs in the Statute that directly conflict with other paragraphs in the statute. That doesn’t make it right to expand the powers of court beyond the nations that signed it into existence.
And what’s wrong with “Love it or Leave it,” Mespo? If you don’t love America, you should get out of it. If not for America’s benefit then for your own happiness. There’s plenty of happy ex-pats out there living in nations that better suit their temperaments and beliefs.
Jonolan,
Isn’t the whole point of having a democratic form of government so that it can be “love it or change it?”
jonolan,
The statment, Love it or Leave it has many logical flaws. It is used to stifle thought and legitimate criticism. When we love our country we want our elected govt. and the rest of the citizens to be the best that all of us are capable of being. Demanding that this administration reverts to the rule of law is not an act of America hating. I would go further and say that people who do condone the overturning of our Constitution are the people who hate America and want to destroy it.
There are many good things about this country and I would hope all people of good will would nuture our highest values. If you can’t think about what is going wrong you can’t ever correct the problem. Love isn’t the suspension of thought or dissent. That is what is required for dictatorships.
Jill
Jill,
Maybe I should just wait for you to post and say “Yeah, what she said.” What about it, want a crony? I’ll even run your errands.
I think that the problem is the conflation of “Loving America” and “Loving America’s Administration” – and the related issue of confusing the Government with the Administration.
It is just as jingoistic to attack the people like Martha for believing America is a great Nation as Mespo claims my words were. Mespo is just fanatically loyal to a different nation than I am and Martha is; he is no less violent or abusive in his defense of his country than he would claim that I am in defense of mine.
But…we have derailed the conversation and moved it away from JH’s post.
Does anyone here believe that it is right for ICC to bring charges against a sovereign ruler of a nation who didn’t sign the accords that created that court? As much as we all hate what is happening in Sudan, are you cognizant of the ramifications of allowing such a court to expand its jurisdiction? Are you willing to accept the loss of national sovereignty?
Does the ends justify the means? It seems many on JH’s blog have said in the past that it doesn’t.
jonolan:
“Mespo is just fanatically loyal to a different nation than I am..”
******************
I obviously swore loyalty to a different nation than you did. My “nation” embodies the rule of law. Pray tell, what is yours and martha h’s?
Oh and thank you for that fine version of “Okie from Muskogee” with its deeply sentimental but just as simple-minded “love it or leave it” line. Like Jesse Jackson said about another group despised by our neo-con brothers, and before his Fox News days, “we aren’t going anywhere, so get over it.”
See you down at the Courthouse waiving “Old Glory”–emphasis on “Old” these days.
jonolan,
The adminstration is “confused” about our govt. They do not believe in our Constitution. Martha and I both believe America is a great nation. I don’t think you addressed either my or Gyges’s points. I would like to know why you believe loving your country involves the lack of criticism of it. Again, that idea is the ideal of dictatorships, not free democracies.
janolan:
“It is just as jingoistic to attack the people like Martha for believing America is a great Nation as Mespo claims my words were”
***********************
Apparently the English language is infinitely malleable to you given that drivel masquerading as profound thought above. For the rest of us who think words do actually have objective meanings, here’s the accepted definition to what I called you:
jin·go·ism (jngg-zm)n.Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy; chauvinistic patriotism.
Man I detest pseudo-intellectuals pontificating about some international treaty and a hypothetical expansion of power by a Court that exists at the whim of the international community. If international law held sway we’d have never had Darfur, Rawanda, or most likely, George Bush’s excursion into Iraq..
Carry on professor, your student are dutifully dozing off.
Yes, Mespo – that is the definition I was using. You don’t live in the same nation as I do – you made a similar though more abusive comment yourself – or the one that Martha does. You’re senseless personal attacks are an example of your own foreign policy.
You also just admitted to having no respect for the US’ sovereignty as a nation – or any other nation’s for that matter.
On another point – Why must you consistently attack people who hold views you don’t agree with? You never argue an issue; you just attack the person.
Jill,
Sorry. Mespo’s attacks tend to set me off.
To address your points – dissent with our government’s actions is sometimes sadly a necessary thing. Dissent with any particular Administration is common and to be expected. Dissent with our government in its form or its sovereignty is treason.
As an example – I have no issues with Mespo’s invocation of “the rule of law.” I have strong objections to his implication that the law in question should be “international” law as opposed to US law.
jonolan:
I had no idea you were so thin-skinned. From now on I will agree with your every utterance and rejoice in your profound understanding of all things human. Please continue on, I hang on every syllable.
One last trifle though on your statement, “[a]s an example – I have no issues with Mespo’s invocation of “the rule of law.” I have strong objections to his implication that the law in question should be “international” law as opposed to US law.”
One shudders at the amount of hallucinogens necessary for you to make that leap. Are your legs tired?
Mespo:
Well, you’ve attacked people – no surprise there – but have failed to share your own opinion on the ICC’s involvement in Sudan. So what is it?
jonolan,
Thank you for responding to my and Gyges question. I do not have enough real information to comment on the ICC situation. I need to do a great deal of research to give a good response. The only thing that comes to mind is that we sign treaties and that is “giving up” complete sovereignty.
jonolan:
I have no specific thoughts on the situation in Sudan except to deplore the actions of its leadership. As a general proposition, I have no problem with signatories to a treaty complying with their treaty obligations, conversely I would not require a non-signatory to comply. That rule is circumscribed by the obvious exception that if a situation becomes out of control so as to risk a whole segment of the population to genocide, I believe it the responsibility of the international community, both morally and legally, to intervene in the most prudent way to diffuse the situation regardless of the consent of the offending nation. I make no general assertions about sovereignty of nations except to say that governments may, by their actions, waive sovereignty in the most extreme circumstances such as wars of aggression, utter lawlessness, and ethnic cleansing. When those situations occur the international community is compelled to act. Sovereignty, like most rights, is not absolute though worthy of great respect.
Well said Mespo.
Sudan is undoubtedly a hellhole, but many of the Arab League nations also treat many of their citizens badly. It would be foolish to expect that they would condemn the Sudanese genocide. Indeed, the human rights record of nations around the world is also none to good.
The question really devolves on whether most nations are willing to relinquish some national sovereignty in order to ensure that these genocidal tragedies and human rights violations are ended. We all know that solution will not happen in our lifetimes, if ever. Until then the only solution is unilateral or joint action by interested nations.
The flaw with this is obvious when looking at Iraq, Viet Nam, or the USSR’s debacle in Afghanistan (ours too perhaps). Who gets to make the decision and what are the motivations behind it?
As to Martha H and Jonolan I would suggest that they really read up on what the USA is supposed to be about, before inviting others with whom they disagree to leave it. I love the country and I was born here. I’m not going anywhere. You two, on the other hand might be a lot more comfortable in a place like Singapore, North Korea, or the Ukraine, where you can play follow the leader (Daddy?) more easily and win praise for it.
Mespo,
We’re not actually in total disagreement on this topic. I just don;t think allowing the ICC to intervene in the internal matters of a non-signatory nation is the prudent way to deal with Sudan. I find it generally to be bad thing to allow courts to expand their jurisdictions.
Even the US chose to let Iraq try Saddam. One could argue that it was a US-proxy court, but at least we didn’t apply foreign law to another nation’s head of state.
Michael also points out the long-term risk of international judgments quite well.
I wonder why, when about 75% of the US media is composed of Jews and the other 24% Christians, Jews and Christians feel the need to voice their negative opinions on other religions especially Islam on sites like this too?
Isn’t CNN, Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC, The New Yorker, The Washington Post, The New York Times, everything from Murdoch, everything from Bloomberg (all owned, run or edited by Jews) enough?