Chavez Opposes Arrest Warrant For Bashir; Asks Why Not Bush?

[tekisui]

Source: Xinhua

DOHA, March 31 (Xinhua) – Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez here Tuesday voiced objection to the arrest warrant of the International Criminal Court (ICC) for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir for alleged war crimes in Darfur.

Upon his arrival at the Doha International Airport to attend the 2nd Arab-South American Summit scheduled for Tuesday, Chavez told reporters that the ICC should be requested to prosecute former U.S. President George W. Bush and Israeli President Shimon Peres, according to Spanish EFE news Agency.

"Why (the ICC) not order the capture of Bush? Why not order the arrest of the president of Israel?” he was quoted as asking.

Leaders of the 22-member Arab League who held a summit on Monday passed a communiqué on rejecting the ICC’s arrest warrant for Bashir.

Chavez said the ICC “has no power to make a decision against a sitting president, but does so because it is an African country, the third world,” said Chavez, whose country is a signatory to the ICC.

The ICC has requested all its signatory members to arrest Bashir.

The Second Summit of Arab-South American countries will be held in the afternoon, with the participation of leaders and senior officials from 12 South American countries and 22 Arab states, plus delegates from the Arab League.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-03/31/content_11107937.htm

[Djinn]

1. war crimes prosecutions are only ever for

the powerless or defeated, of course Chavez knows this and you have to love him for saying it clearly, bet he'd be an Exploited fan if he were a punk;

"There's a law for the rich, a law for the people like you and me"

[geek tragedy]

11. He's standing up for a fellow oil exporter.

Hugo is a punk-ass with no regards for human rights.

Genocide is a-okay so long as it isn't done by a pro-Western regime.

He goes into the 'bad person' pile now.

[Djinn]

34. I don't believe he said anything of the sort

where does he say genocide is OK? and since when did you ever have him on the good pile

[geek tragedy]

54. He thinks his political enemies should be arrested

but not his genocidalist allies.

Pretty clear what's going on with Hugo, and it ain't a concern for human rights. Hugo doesn't give a rat's ass about the genocide in Darfur.

[EFerrari]

59. You are full of it. The coup plotters were given AMNESTY.

You apparently don't give a rat's ass about what you post here.

[cali]

2. Agitating for justice for some war criminals and not for others, is hardly an ethical position, Hugo

And the petro-dollar proposition, is more than a little shortsighted. Chavez' zeal to take down the U.S. is obliterating his good sense on the international front.

[tekisui]

3. It's a rather flimsy argument to say, "Don't prosecute these war crimes,

because he came from a poor country". It would have been a stronger claim to say Bashir AND Bush should be arrested for War Crimes.

[cali]

4. Oh, it's pretty obvious what motivates this

If not, folks should read the article I just posted about Chavez' proposition for a petro-dollar currency. Chavez is just another politician, not some great hero of the left. Heroes of the left, don't ignore genocide and support genocidal leaders just because it's convenient.

[Smith_3]

10. I'm not the biggest Chavez fan but I kind of agree with him here.

If we cannot hold our own accountable we have no business holding others accountable.

[cali]

14. Uh, the ICC is not "us"

It's hardly an apparatus of the U.S. gov't- or even the west.

[geek tragedy]

15. The US didn't ratify the ICC treaty.

So, this is not the US's doing. This is the human rights community that Hugo and his genocidalist buddy find themselves confronting.

[Smith_3]

20. Ok. I see that there might be opportunism in Chavez's approach.

For consistency he would have to reject any kind of international justice unless it works top-down instead of bottom-up.

[EFerrari]

41. That's a ridiculous argument. That the US didn't ratify the treaty

doesn't let Bush off the hook. And if Bush is not prosecuted for his crimes, that calls into question the integrity of the Court. And THAT is Chavez's point, not excusing genocide as you hilariously claim.

[geek tragedy]

51. The ICC has no jurisdiction over what happened in Iraq.

Moreover, the invasion of Afghanistan was not illegal according to the UN. If the government of Afghanistan wants to refer US torture to the ICC, they are free to do so. But they haven't.

[EFerrari]

60. I referred to the torture program. And the Afghan government

doesn't need to do it. The victims can, however.

[leveymg]

5. Given the history of the US in Venezuela & the region, hardly surprising that Chavez hates

American presidents, and that he's turned to those who share his sentiments. That seems to be a repeating pattern.

Of course there's a double-standard, on both sides.

[geek tragedy]

16. Plenty of Latin Americans don't excuse genocide.

Hugo Chavez has shown himself as the morally bankrupt tinhorn punk he is.

[leveymg]

30. The history of colonization of the New World set the model for genocide

Don't pretend that anyone has an historical monopoly or that any group has special virtue. It seems to be affliction to which we all have an imperfect response.

Frankly, condemnation often seems selective and not without ulterior motives.

[geek tragedy]

31. So what? Does that excuse Hitler or Pol Pot or Bashir?

Nonsense gibberish morally idiotic answer.

[leveymg]

36. I condemn them all

But, I don't pretend to be a moral absolutist. What's your beef with Hugo, really? Would you be spending your bile on him if his pals weren't Muslims?

As I said, so much outrage seems so selective.

[EFerrari]

42. It looks to some of us as if they're still trying to get Chavez out

and specifically, in the same way they tried to destabilize Morales in Bolivia, by going through a distant canton where the opposition is entrenched and bribes are welcomed. In this case, Zulia -- which has the advantages of bordering on Colombia, our client state, and of being the seat of the Venezuelan oil industry if I'm not mistaken:



I don't agree with Chavez about the warrant but he's right about the double standard.

[leveymg]

43. Mosquito Coast comes to mind

English-speaking, predominantly black enclave in Nicaragua used by the Contras as a safe haven. But, that sounds like Guyana, doesn't it? Any reports of funny goings-on on the eastern border?

[EFerrari]

45. Like Zulia to the west, Nueva Esparta also has a local opposition

government. There's a good sized port there. Chavez just re-federalized all the ports. Hard to blame him, no?

[geek tragedy]

50. Yes, people who object to genocide are Islamophobic racists.

:sarcasm:

Good god, the Chavez Cultists here are something else.

Welcome to my ignore list for the accusation of bigotry. And for your morally bankrupt worldview.

You won't be missed.

[leveymg]

55. You're welcome to retreat into your own little world of like-minded small minds.

I can't imagine such a suffocating hall of mirrors. The fears you must live with, you, yourself, and yours - you're all welcome to your own little private Hell.

Your judgment about people isn't very good. While some of his programs to help the poor seem appealing, I am no real fan of Hugo Chavez. And, about you, I didn't conclude you're a bigot. I merely imputed that your moral outrage may be selective - just like everyone else, myself included. I've learned not to assume the false cloak of moral absolutism, or to assume that anyone else is perfect.

[Djinn]

37. where does Chavez do that?

stop deliberately misinterpreting him

[geek tragedy]

49. He thinks Bashir should get a free pass.

Screw Hugo.

[Djinn]

67. biting political analysis as ever huh geek tragedy

[Dorian Gray]

6. Say what you will about George Bush

but for him to stand up for Bashir?

Yeah... not really something that will make his (Chavez's) naysayers respect him more.

[cali]

7. I'm curious about how his most ardent DU supporters will react-

or whether they'll simply ignore this story.

[geek tragedy]

13. They'll agree with him.

Because only Europeans, Americans, and Israelis are capable of evil.

[Posteritatis]

74. Looks like you're right; ugh (nt)

[cali]

8. kick

[Smith_3]

9. I sort of agree with that statement. If international courts want to shake the image

of "might makes right" then they need to hold the leaders of powerful countries accountable before they hold the leaders of not-so-powerful countries accountable. If they are unwilling or unable to do so it kind of discredits the whole system of international laws or laws in general. How are young people ever possibly going to learn to respect the law, when the notion that some people are above it is constantly reinforced?

[cali]

12. How about holding offenders accountable wherever they're from?

Seriously, Bashir is a war criminal and Darfur is genocide.

[Smith_3]

18. Sure. But what motivates the ICC to issue a warrant for him and not for Bush?

Even if it is just a symbolic gesture that cannot be enforced, they could issue warrants for both.

[geek tragedy]

22. The ICC only has jurisdiction over countries that ratify it.

It has no jurisdiction over Bush for Iraq because neither Iraq nor the United States were state parties when the crimes were committed.

Under their own charter, they don't have jurisdiction.

[Smith_3]

26. So I guess then Chavez is just using this as an opportunity to take a swing at the USA.

His favorite pastime.

[leveymg]

38. However, the Conventions Against Genocide and Torture are Self-Enforcing. All who sign are

obligated to arrest offenders who are not restrained and brought to justice whereever they might be because the states where they are located are unwilling or unable to enforce those treaties.

That group of offenders against international law subject to universal jurisdiction appears to include both the former U.S. Administration and that of Sudan. Both may need to be brought to justice by international action, but I would prefer we do our own dirty laundry, ourselves. Hang 'em up to dry.

[EFerrari]

44. That's not accurate. It also has jurisdiction if the crime was committed

in a country that has accepted the Rome statute or if the UN Security Council refers a matter.

Afghanistan is a member and Bush's torture program was run there. It's likely that CIA ran black sites in member states, too, like Poland and that Cheney had people kidnapped in those states as well.

So yes, the ICC does have jurisdiction.

[geek tragedy]

52. Bashir is worse than Bush.

Certainly worse than Shimon Peres.

By any objective measure.

But, spin away for St. Hugo.

Ignore the 'oil' factor.

[EFerrari]

61. You're not worth the effort. n/t

[cali]

25. Lots of things. It's a lot more complex. The war in Iraq wasn't

opposed by the U.N. Many countries supported it, if only nominally. No major HR organization that I'm aware of has declared that going into Iraq, in and of itself, was a war crime. The U.S. is not a signatory to the ICC. Doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. It should. Bushco lied us into war. And I think it will happen. But as you said, Bashir shouldn't be excused just because the ICC hasn't yet indicted bushco.

[malaise]

17. Duh!

That is all

[cali]

19. So, it OK to commit genocide if you're a poor country

because bush hasn't been indicted? Hmmm.

[Iggo]

23. Yeah. If Bush does it, everyone should be able to do it.

Now that's some logic I can get behind.

(What the...?)

[malaise]

46. When the world makes it clear to the biggest criminals that it will

not tolerate genocide, the other criminals will get the message. Indeed many of the sprats have killed their own on behalf of the sharks.
Start at the top.

[cali]

47. uh, Bashir is undoubtedly one of the word's biggest criminals

and no, indicting bushco, good as that will be, will not suddenly usher in a world of kumbaya wherein genocide is but a dark memory.

By sheer number of dead and hideous actions, Bahir is at the top of the heap. Right alongside bush.

[geek tragedy]

24. So you oppose justice for the victims of Sudan.

Amazing how many 'progressives' are only interested in human rights when it gives them a chance to bash the US and its allies.

[pnutbutr]

21. Srsly

guys? In Darfur the government has been systematically destroying the native population, enslaving them, starving them, torturing and rapeing the women and children and driving them out with devastating force and violence. I hate Bush also but there is no comparison between the two. Darfur is an issue that needed to be dealt with years ago. The goal of Bashir is genocide of the native people and it has been happening and continues to happen. Bush's goal no matter how you much we hate him and present it is not genocide. I'm gonna be called all kinds of repukish names now aren't I? :(

P.S. Chavez is an idiot

[cali]

27. I'm not going to call you names, but I think bushco is guilty of war crimes.

He lied us into an illegal war.

[pnutbutr]

29. I agree

but it still does not = genocide

[Peace Patriot]

57. Estimates by the British doctors group and others are that ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND

innocent Iraqis were slaughtered in the first weeks of the Bushwhacks' "shock and awe" bombing of Iraq, and ONE MILLION total have died in all of the violence, including the deliberate, Rumsfeld-created chaos.

That is genocide.

[pnutbutr]

58. That's weird considering....

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

Maybe you have a link for yours that describes the methods used to come up with that estimate.





About the Iraq Body Count project

Iraq Body Count (IBC) records the violent civilian deaths that have resulted from the 2003 military intervention in Iraq. Its public database includes deaths caused by US-led coalition forces and paramilitary or criminal attacks by others.

IBC’s documentary evidence is drawn from crosschecked media reports of violent events leading to the death of civilians, or of bodies being found, and is supplemented by the careful review and integration of hospital, morgue, NGO and official figures.

Systematically extracted details about deadly incidents and the individuals killed in them are stored with every entry in the database. The minimum details always extracted are the number killed, where, and when.

Confusion about the numbers produced by the project can be avoided by bearing in mind that:

* IBC’s figures are not ‘estimates’ but a record of actual, documented deaths.
* IBC records solely violent deaths.
* IBC records solely civilian (strictly, ‘non-combatant’) deaths.
* IBC’s figures are constantly updated and revised as new data comes in, and frequent consultation is advised.

IBC builds on innovative uses of new technologies without which this citizens’ initiative would be impossible. The project was founded in January 2003 by volunteers from the UK and USA who felt a responsibility to ensure that the human consequences of military intervention in Iraq were not neglected.

[EFerrari]

62. Those numbers are from The Lancet, the most respected medical journal.

[pnutbutr]

64. I have read that report

in it's entirety and it admits flaws with the estimates based on it's polling method and locations. Extremely large overestimations.

[EFerrari]

66. Baloney. And the Lancet studies are peer reviewed, unlike IBC.

[pnutbutr]

68. It also doesn't

differentiate between civilian and combatant deaths or violent and natural deaths. The Lancet study is a lump sum estimate of all deaths in Iraq based on a survey of 1800 households. Some households failed to produce death certificates when requested and the estimate far exceeds all other studies or numbers produced by even the Iraq ministry of health. The interview process and the survey in general has been widely criticised by the UN, Iraq Ministry of Health, AAPPOR, Johns Hopkins, Numerous media outlets including the Times, WSJ, LA Times, BBC and others. Further, the author of the Lancet survey refused to release information about the survey to the AAPOR for review. The pre-invasion death rate which this survey is based on has also been seriously questioned and disputed by many including a previous report in the Lancet medical journal.

When you have many different sources claiming one number, around 100,000 and then one lone source claiming 650,000 it should tell anyone with half a brain that something ain't right.

[EFerrari]

71. The opposing case is just as strong and in fact it's IBC that

acknowledges that their estimates necessarily exclude many deaths because they only count the ones reported in the media. You have it exactly backwards.

[geek tragedy]

28. No one with two brain cells to rub together will disagree with you.

Especially since, if they know ANYTHING about the ICC, they know it doesn't have jurisdiction over the US absent a Security Council referral (um, good luck with that).

[Peace Patriot]

32. Yup, our guys slaughter a hundred thousand innocent people to steal their oil,

and torture and displace tens of thousands, and no one, as yet, has officially objected, let alone prosecuted them. The discrepancy is mind-boggling. I wouldn't say, "Don't arrest Bashir." He, too, should be held accountable for any war crimes that he has committed. But what of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Tony Blair? They just skate.

It's like the banks: "Too big to fail." The Bushwhacks are too powerful to prosecute. But an accused war criminal in a third world country--especially where oil is the big issue*--he's fair game.

-------------------

*

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0819-26.htm
War of the Future:
Oil Drives the Genocide in Darfur
(Interesting background on the oil in Sudan, although the author makes broad statements that are not true in many cases, for instance, "Oil has brought corruption and turmoil in its wake virtually wherever it has been discovered in the developing world." This is simply not true in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Brazil, since these peoples elected leftist governments. The oil in the first three, in particular, is being used for education, universal health care and many other benefits to the poor and to society in general. But for background on how oil is driving the civil war in Sudan, the article is useful.)

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2004/0807-Darfur.html
Sudan, Oil, and the Darfur Crisis
Are the U.S. and Britain seeking a pretext for intervention in order to take advantage of Sudan's oil?
(A very interesting alternative view of the conflict, re tribal warfare in Sudan, also focusing on the oil.)

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0305/breaking2.htm
Arrest warrant is 'ploy' to seize Sudanese oil - Bashir
(A recent news article giving Bashir's side of it, in the first paragraphs.)

[cali]

33. really? No one has officially objected?

I suggest you pay attention. Spain has certainly officially objected, or at least a judge there has. Lots of official objections have been made, both here (ever hear of Dennis Kucinich?), in the U.N. and in other venues. So please, feel free to retract that statement.

Glad to see that you think Bashir should also be held accountable. Why doesn't Chavez, who is speaking out AGAINST accountability in the ongoing genocide that has already claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands? Do you think he's right here?

[Peace Patriot]

56. The Spanish judge did not name Bush, Cheny & Rumsfeld. Too big to fail?

He just named lesser lights--like Yoo and Feith. And I was discussing legal objections--not general official objections. Perhaps the phrase "official objection" was imprecise, but the context was clear. I was talking about prosecution.

Of course I am aware of various public officials' objections to the war crimes--including of course Dennis Kucinich. Don't get tart with me. You have already admitted on this board that you post to stir up flame wars about Chavez, and enjoy such wars. So I owe you nothing. You are a troublemaker who spouts views merely to see what the reaction will be. I have no faith at all that you care even a little bit about the people of Darfur. You also claim to be not on one side or the other--you just enjoy people fighting. Yet your posts are always anti-Chavez.

Do I think he's right here? Yes, on the point he was making--that a third world accused war criminal is easy to pick on, and I would add, especially where oil and the "west" are concerned; and no, I don't think any war crimes that he has committed should be ignored because he is a third world leader. But so what if I disagree with Chavez? I disagree with Obama for proceeding with killing more civilians in Afghanistan, and on a number of other human rights and political issues, but I voted for him--and would do so again. Why should I get all huffy about this particular issue? The "west" has been fucking over Africa for 500 years, and I'm supposed to get excited about a local tyrant? Sure, he should be prosecuted, if there is sufficient reason to do so, but so what? The only reason that the U.S. or European political establishments care about anything that happens in Africa is Africa's mineral and other resources. I lived through the era in which the CIA assassinated Patrice Lumumba. I know what U.S./Euro African policy is all about. And we have seen that policy replicated in our hemisphere, with horrors beyond belief inflicted by the U.S. or U.S.-funded and trained local operatives throughout Latin America, including recently, in Colombia and Bolivia. And we are currently the arms dealers for a good part of the fascist world. What of the genocide that the U.S. committed in Iraq, and the on-going killings in Afghanistan, and U.S. complicity in the murder of thousands of union leaders and others in Colombia, by security forces that we fund? That is what concerns me, and what I am partly responsible for as a citizen of the U.S. And what of British, Spanish and Italian complicity in the Iraq genocide? You can't get around this. This is our concern. Where is accountability? Where is the rule of law in the "west"? Where is the example? Our own leaders have been as horrible and greedy and as power-mad as any in Africa. And until our leaders are held to account, we have no moral authority--zero, zip, nada--as to accusing others.

[pnutbutr]

35. China and Sudanese oil

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/mar2008/gb20080314_430126.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_global+business



China's thirst for oil is causing bloodshed. So says New York-based nongovernmental organization Human Rights First, which on Mar. 13 released a report linking China's rising imports of Sudanese oil with sales of Chinese small weapons to Khartoum, used to further the deadly conflict in the western region of Darfur.

[EFerrari]

39. Looks like that's the position of the Arab League and he's there for a meeting:

Arab Leaders Won’t Back Arrest Bid for Sudan’s Bashir (Update1)
By Maher Chmaytelli

March 30 (Bloomberg) -- Arab states said they won’t carry out a warrant for the arrest of Sudanese President Umar al- Bashir, who is accused by the International Criminal Court of war crimes.

“We reaffirm our solidarity with Sudan, our refusal of the ICC’s decision concerning President Umar al-Bashir, our support to brotherly Sudan against all attempts aimed at harming its security, stability and territorial integrity,” said a declaration read by the secretary general of the Arab League, Amre Moussa, at the end of an Arab leaders’ summit in Qatar’s capital, Doha.

Al-Bashir, speaking at the closing ceremony of the one-day summit, thanked the leaders for refusing to accept “unfair decisions.” The ICC on March 4 agreed to the request of Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo and accused al-Bashir of crimes against humanity for allegedly masterminding atrocities in the Darfur region, including murder, rape and torture.

It was al-Bashir’s fourth trip abroad since the issuance of the warrant, after he traveled to Eritrea, Libya and Egypt. Of the 22 Arab states, only Jordan, the Comoros and Djibouti have signed the 1998 Rome treaty establishing the ICC.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601104&sid=aHqtLI__0Xtc

[cali]

40. So what? Really, why is that relevant except in that it shows that

Chavez is willing to embrace hypocrisy for expediency? Face it, Chavez is fallible. He makes mistakes. This is a rather glaring one.

[pnutbutr]

53. The Arab league

is so much fail. Some of their actions truly sicken me.

[EFerrari]

63. Is there an English translation for what you are trying to say?!

[Xenotime]

48. take * to court!! We didn't get the impeachment that we so deserved..

It's time to take the whole * administration to court and procecute them to the fullest extent.

[Forkboy]

65. I understand the point he's trying to make, but this isn't the way to make it.

He should be for justice in both instances, regardless of whether or not only one actually comes to fruition. Claiming to be for justice while ignoring it to score points, whether those points be right or wrong, is just the entirely wrong approach.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

69. Fuck Chavez.

[fujiyama]

70. Sickening

but not surprising - either from Chavez or the Arab League.

Both are absolute hypocrites and have streaks of despotism with little regard for human rights. I'm sad to see Chavez sticking up for a genocidal thug like Bashir. I still think compared to some of the other regimes we heap praise over or shovel money to, he's not as bad, but that's saying little.

[New Dawn]

72. Bush murdered 1.4 million Iraqis, where is his arrest warrant?

President Chavez raises a great point, the "International Criminal Court" is clearly not a neutral or fair body, otherwise it would place a warrant out for Bush's arrest. Some might try to argue "But the USA is not part of the ICC!", but neither is Sudan.

[Posteritatis]

73. Chavez supporting a genocidal tyrant out of anti-US contrarianism? Color me shocked (nt)

(ed. - hukd on fonyks wrkd fr mi)

[KansDem]

75. He has a point...

I wondered the same thing myself.