Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: RV Pundit on June 23, 2015, 12:38:07 PM
-
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/22/rwandan-general-karake-arrested-london-war-crimes?CMP=share_btn_fb
-
Jail the fellow if he is guilty of these crimes. Africa has too many of these kind of characters.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/22/rwandan-general-karake-arrested-london-war-crimes?CMP=share_btn_fb
-
He killed 3 bazungu from Spain. Bazungu value their lives dearly. The African who thinks he can kill them and operate around EU freely is a fool.
-
That is only reason he is being tried. It is racism by EU gov. Africa lives do not matter? They should try all criminals including blair and this guy...anywhere anyhow..as long as there is evidence and trial is fair.
He killed 3 bazungu from Spain. Bazungu value their lives dearly. The African who thinks he can kill them and operate around EU freely is a fool.
-
That is only reason he is being tried. It is racism by EU gov. Africa lives do not matter? They should try all criminals including blair and this guy...anywhere anyhow..as long as there is evidence and trial is fair.
He killed 3 bazungu from Spain. Bazungu value their lives dearly. The African who thinks he can kill them and operate around EU freely is a fool.
I agree with you. Those 3 Spaniards are the source of his problems. He could, and probably did/does, slaughter Rwandans en masse without a peep from EU, or AU for that matter.
That said, Africans have neither organization nor interest to pursue such criminals on behalf of Africans, let alone on behalf of Arabs(Blair's victims).
-
That is only reason he is being tried. It is racism by EU gov. Africa lives do not matter? They should try all criminals including blair and this guy...anywhere anyhow..as long as there is evidence and trial is fair.
He killed 3 bazungu from Spain. Bazungu value their lives dearly. The African who thinks he can kill them and operate around EU freely is a fool.
I know what you mean Pundit, look at the mess they have done to Zim to teach Mugabe a lesson about how to treat bazungu skin. But you know, Tony Blair never ordered civilians targetted, bazungu or otherwise. He ordered an illegal invasion which was not really a very clearly-defined crime in international law or bazungu laws at that time. They did that with the full backing of their respective parliaments, and they were not in charge of the actual conduct of the war, just in charge of ordering that the war happen. Plus, their armies are both capable and willing to try their own soldiers for war crimes which we Africans just are not(willing, that is). I know many people feel Blair and W ought to have been tried at the ICC were it not for big bro Amerca's mighty club and the bazungu skin protecting them because of the mess they brought to Iraq but I dont think there was a law that would have allowed that. We need to start owning our own messes and handling them ourselves, even our own criminals, but we are very far as of today.
-
I recognize Africa including their leadership have way too much problems to deal with that these crimes against impunity of any sort just doesn't register. So join me in calling and pleading for guys who have the luxury to see 3 spaniards out of 1M victims of Kagame counter-genocide to do the same for African; Europeans are not racist; No people are racism as whole; it their gov and politicians.
We are all humans. EU owe it to Africans as much as we they owe it to others. Of course we know they are ran by racist bigot and will rush to Africa to protect 6,000 zim white farmers while ignoring everything else.
There is no black or white..just a bunch of racist bigots...among humans.
I agree with you. Those 3 Spaniards are the source of his problems. He could, and probably did/does, slaughter Rwandans en masse without a peep from EU, or AU for that matter.
That said, Africans have neither organization nor interest to pursue such criminals on behalf of Africans, let alone on behalf of Arabs(Blair's victims).
-
Bella, I have to disagree with your strongly. In short you're saying British or American institution have legitimacy that African gov like Sudan do not have? You can bet Bashir followed the sudanese law as far as Darfur goes. Who determine that. As far as I know Blair has warranty of arrest out there and he should be arrested and tried. The war in Iraq is a real shame. An illegality. The war that has destroyed more lives in my view that any other war since veitnam and world war 2.
I know what you mean Pundit, look at the mess they have done to Zim to teach Mugabe a lesson about how to treat bazungu skin. But you know, Tony Blair never ordered civilians targetted, bazungu or otherwise. He ordered an illegal invasion which was not really a very clearly-defined crime in international law or bazungu laws at that time. They did that with the full backing of their respective parliaments, and they were not in charge of the actual conduct of the war, just in charge of ordering that the war happen. Plus, their armies are both capable and willing to try their own soldiers for war crimes which we Africans just are not(willing, that is). I know many people feel Blair and W ought to have been tried at the ICC were it not for big bro Amerca's mighty club and the bazungu skin protecting them because of the mess they brought to Iraq but I dont think there was a law that would have allowed that. We need to start owning our own messes and handling them ourselves, even our own criminals, but we are very far as of today.
-
I see what you mean because this general is being charged under a national law/court not before an international court. It would be interesting if one day an American president is arrested in Iraq or some other Arab country and charged under its laws, but no one has the cojones to dare do such a thing, c'est la vie.
-
I recognize Africa including their leadership have way too much problems to deal with that these crimes against impunity of any sort just doesn't register. So join me in calling and pleading for guys who have the luxury to see 3 spaniards out of 1M victims of Kagame counter-genocide to do the same for African; Europeans are not racist; No people are racism as whole; it their gov and politicians.
What do you have in mind for them to do for African?
-
Yes it won't happen anytime soon...unless you're willing to become another zimbwabwe..where EU and US will make your an example of touching a white man.
I see what you mean because this general is being charged under a national law/court not before an international court. It would be interesting if one day an American president is arrested in Iraq or some other Arab country and charged under its laws, but no one has the cojones to dare do such a thing, c'est la vie.
-
To treat them as human with blood and tears like the Zim's white farmers.
What do you have in mind for them to do for African?
-
To treat them as human with blood and tears like the Zim's white farmers.
I fully support that, and I join you in the calling and pleading.
Still, consider, as one example, the DRC: over 5 million killed, over 1 million internally displaced, untold numbers injured and crippled, rapes, and what have you. I think that if African can do better by African, then it will be somewhat easier to call on others to do the same.
-
I recognize Africa including their leadership have way too much problems to deal with that these crimes against impunity of any sort just doesn't register. So join me in calling and pleading for guys who have the luxury to see 3 spaniards out of 1M victims of Kagame counter-genocide to do the same for African; Europeans are not racist; No people are racism as whole; it their gov and politicians.
We are all humans. EU owe it to Africans as much as we they owe it to others. Of course we know they are ran by racist bigot and will rush to Africa to protect 6,000 zim white farmers while ignoring everything else.
There is no black or white..just a bunch of racist bigots...among humans.
I agree with you. Those 3 Spaniards are the source of his problems. He could, and probably did/does, slaughter Rwandans en masse without a peep from EU, or AU for that matter.
That said, Africans have neither organization nor interest to pursue such criminals on behalf of Africans, let alone on behalf of Arabs(Blair's victims).
I don't doubt the racist bigotry. In fact that's the reason I think the African is hisself's only best hope. No one loves him. He has to start loving himself.
-
We (as African) are not doing completely nothing. But those with more like Eu can do more. Amisom and most of peacekeepers are Africans. But for us to do more...we need more and we don't have money. We are poor. They are rich. So Eu and Us need to do more...because they can do more.
I fully support that, and I join you in the calling and pleading.
Still, consider, as one example, the DRC: over 5 million killed, over 1 million internally displaced, untold numbers injured and crippled, rapes, and what have you. I think that if African can do better by African, then it will be somewhat easier to call on others to do the same.
-
I see no reason to give up of US, EU and the likes doing the right thing.They've done it before and they will do it now. You cannot give up on humans. Just because of some few racist bigots. We cannot condemn the white world entirely as foregone racist. My bet is many are willing and ready to treat us all as humans deserving of equal treatment and compassion.
I don't doubt the racist bigotry. In fact that's the reason I think the African is hisself's only best hope. No one loves him. He has to start loving himself.
-
I see no reason to give up of US, EU and the likes doing the right thing.They've done it before and they will do it now. You cannot give up on humans.
I don't doubt the racist bigotry. In fact that's the reason I think the African is hisself's only best hope. No one loves him. He has to start loving himself.
I haven't given up on Africans. The mzungu cares for mzungu and no one else. Have you ever wondered why ISIS does not care for black American hostages?
-
The mzungu in gov and authority is one that practise that racial policy including highlight any little infraction of white harm like those zim farmers or the 3 spaniards here while ignoring the killings happening in middle east,asia and africa. The idea is to appeal to white majority in those countries. Be it political or media or business.
Like slavery and coloniliasm..we have to fight this.
This is an attitude problem. I doubt there is white world conspiracy that was enacted that my colleagues at work missed.
I haven't given up on Africans. The mzungu cares for mzungu and no one else. Have you ever wondered why ISIS does not care for black American hostages?
-
We (as African) are not doing completely nothing. But those with more like Eu can do more. Amisom and most of peacekeepers are Africans. But for us to do more...we need more and we don't have money. We are poor. They are rich. So Eu and Us need to do more...because they can do more.
What I specifically meant is that those Africans who engage in atrocities against fellow Africans ought to cut it out. One does not need money in order to refrain from genocide, mass rapes, etc.
So while we are joining you in calling and pleading with the wazungus to do better in Africa, I ask people to join me in calling and pleading with Africans to treat their fellow Africans differently.
-
To the best of my knowledge, there are US officials - current and past - who plan their travels very wisely on account of active warrants whose execution depends on the discretion of mandarin and country. I believe Bush, Kissinger, Rumsfeld, etc have been unable to travel to Switzerland and Belgium and indeed freely within Europe.
That said, just a brief comment on Pundit's views on the possible prosecution of Blair: I think Pundit is not ignorant of the finer details of the matter and why the two cannot appear before the ICC. Even if one overcame the legal bottlenecks, look at how Bashir managed to sneak through loopholes between the South African Judiciary and the Executive. As you rightly said, any poor country that tries to play hero would end up worse than Zim. I can add that any Non Poor country that attempts would be inviting a war.
It is a jungle out there. That is why efforts such as the ICC should be supported strengthened and accepted. In his last interview before leaving office, Nyerere said his greatest success was the popular acceptance of the ideals of socialism by Tanzanians. Today even as capitalism thrives in Tanzania, they have fewer problems over land, infrastructure etc, thanks to Nyerere. We need to do the same for such institutions as the ICC
I have no problem with regional courts such as Uhuru's African Court. However would it be allowed to function if it gets serious with its work? Is Uhuru willing to submit himself to the said court or is he setting it up for his subjects and not himself or his fellow Presidents?
-
I have no problem with regional courts such as Uhuru's African Court. However would it be allowed to function if it gets serious with its work? Is Uhuru willing to submit himself to the said court or is he setting it up for his subjects and not himself or his fellow Presidents?
I heard they made sure that no heads of state can be tried, meaning, those most likely to commit the crimes will never be tried.
-
Isn't the head of state immune from criminal proceedings while serving...any where in the world.
I heard they made sure that no heads of state can be tried, meaning, those most likely to commit the crimes will never be tried.
-
The last time I looked at this was way back in 1996, so I would answer Yes and NO. Perhaps Bella can expound on it better.
The idea is to protect the Presidency not the person. It does not grant the President Impunity. So Nixon was to be impeached and tried for real crimes.
In most countries the Head of state would face the same music as Nixon except that minor crimes may not be pursued unless they cumulatively amount to high crimes. While one is protected from prosecution, he is not protected from investigation. That is how the Prosecution pushes such people to eventually resign or make bigger mistakes that make it easier to try them.
Some countries provide for the immunity to be lifted.
I believe one is really protected from civil litigation.
Isn't the head of state immune from criminal proceedings while serving...any where in the world.
I heard they made sure that no heads of state can be tried, meaning, those most likely to commit the crimes will never be tried.
-
Isn't the head of state immune from criminal proceedings while serving...any where in the world.
I heard they made sure that no heads of state can be tried, meaning, those most likely to commit the crimes will never be tried.
Pundit, here is how I see it: There are crimes for which no one in this world should be immune from prosecution because they are just so henious. Genocide, for one. Can you imagine excusing Hitler from trial for exterminating Jews ati because he was head of state? I think if we are going to have a regional court that cant touch people who do such things, such a court may as well roll over and die because its useless.
-
I have no problem with regional courts such as Uhuru's African Court. However would it be allowed to function if it gets serious with its work? Is Uhuru willing to submit himself to the said court or is he setting it up for his subjects and not himself or his fellow Presidents?
I heard they made sure that no heads of state can be tried, meaning, those most likely to commit the crimes will never be tried.
It is worse than that. The immunity is for heads of state and "senior government officials", with the latter not specified. That pretty much covers anyone with any sort of power in a government.
The other things is that, looking North to the "Arab Springs", the court will have the jurisdiction to deal with the supposedly very serious crime of "popular uprising". (The proposed law actually uses those very words!)
-
I believe one is really protected from civil litigation.
Not really. Take Kenya for example. The constitution
(a) protects the president from national criminal proceedings;
(b) does not protect the president from certain types of international criminal proceedings (ICC-Rome Statute);
(c) does not entirely protect the president from national civil proceedings.
In relation to the difference between (a) and (c) is in the wording:
143. (1) Criminal proceedings shall not be instituted or continued
in any court against the President or a person performing the functions
of that office, during their tenure of office.
(2) Civil proceedings shall not be instituted in any court against
the President or the person performing the functions of that office
during their tenure of office in respect of anything done or not done in
the exercise of their powers under this Constitution.
-
I have no problem with regional courts such as Uhuru's African Court. However would it be allowed to function if it gets serious with its work? Is Uhuru willing to submit himself to the said court or is he setting it up for his subjects and not himself or his fellow Presidents?
I heard they made sure that no heads of state can be tried, meaning, those most likely to commit the crimes will never be tried.
It is worse than that. The immunity is for heads of state and "senior government officials", with the latter not specified.
The African way is preserved thus. Ingenious because the end point of such crimes is usually a senior position in government.
I wonder who supplies the court with milk. Perhaps Miss Desire? They like their beverages with a thick serving of milk.
-
I actually don't worry too much about this court, for two reasons:
* Despite all the talk, African countries themselves don't seem particularly keen. So far only 28 have signed up (a small number than for the ICC) and only 6 or 7 have bothered to ratify the relevant protocols.
* The court's predecessor never had the money to do anything serious, and this new-and-improved court has even less. If African countries are not keen on joining, they are even less keen on giving money. So, as things stand, the AU plan is that "donors" and development partners" will do the needful. Yes, the very same ones to be shown that Africa can have its own courts for such things---sovereign, independent, and equal!
-
The problem of having weak institutions comes calling in such cases. The police would be told that the President is Immune and stay away. Nowhere does that clause stop investigations.
The way I see it:
1.President Pundit breaks the law;
2. MP Moonki citing investigations by an independent police files Impeachment charges
3. An Impartial and highly conscientious parliament hears the case and in the end impeaches the President
4. The President, ever so graceful, voluntarily leaves office and
5. He is arrested the next day and tried for the crimes
6. The Presidency is saved the ignominy of appearing in court - make believe handovers notwithstanding.
The key to this process is having an independent Police and Prosecution willing to exploit their power to investigate anybody and everybody including the President. The President can be interrogated. I see nothing that says he can't.
Now this has happened in Israel with Moshe Katsav. In his case, he skipped 3 and made a deal with prosecutors to plead guilty and get a mild sentence. He reneged and as I speak he is in prison serving 7 years. (Am just saying: if he had taken the plea in 2007, he would be long done with the case!- May be something Uhuru could think of considering his case will never really get stale as long as he is alive.)
Civil Proceedings:
I must confess not having really looked at these provisions keenly. I must have made some unfortunate assumptions. I think this is fair. It was very sad to watch some Mhindi businessman go bankrupt as Kibaki refused to pay him for the rental of his cars during the 2002 campaign. Instead of being a gentleman to pay the guy, he hired an expensive lawyer to go to court to say Kibaki could not be sued for refusing to pay his debts!
Removal of President by impeachment.
145. (1) A member of the National Assembly, supported by at least a third of all the members, may move a motion for the impeachment of the President—
(a) on the ground of a gross violation of a provision of this Constitution or of any other law;
(b) where there are serious reasons for believing that the President has committed a crime under national or international law; or
(c) for gross misconduct.