SA Court Orders Bashir Not to Leave...

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Of course. Arresting  Bashir is declaration of war. Bashir is president of Sudan and the Chief of Staff (Commander in Chief). My bet is you'll violate so many treaties in the process. Given your have plenty of time...you can go through all the vienna treaties..and if you don't find one..I'll step in. For starters Bashir enjoys diplomatic immunity against any proceedings.

"There are many treaties that makes arresting Bashir nothing short of declaration of war with Sudan."

I don't think it would be a declaration of war.  I am no expert, but I think treaties and their enforcement are generally incompatible with war.  Kababe might have more to say on that. 

Would arresting Bashir engender feelings of war among some Sudanese?  Possibly.  But my hunch is he would have been replaced before the prison van arrives at his jail.

[MOON Ki]

Start by defining
1) What is a treaty.
2) What is declaration of war.
3) When can war be declared.

He, he, he ... That is very funny!  Still, not as funny as the claim that "Arrest Bashir is declaration of war".   

[RV Pundit]

Bashir as commander in chief is legally the one to declare war. Of course what follows will depend on the loyalty of the ground force and the practicality of war. If Kenya was to arrest Bashir coz somebody rushed to our courts...definitely the prospect of Sudan-Kenya war would be very high.

Bottomline: Arresting Bashir is NOT easy. It just won't happen.

I don't think it would be a declaration of war.  I am no expert, but I think treaties and their enforcement are generally incompatible with war.  Kababe might have more to say on that. 

Would arresting Bashir engender feelings of war among some Sudanese?  Possibly.  But my hunch is he would have been replaced before the prison van arrives at his jail.

[MOON Ki]

I don't think it would be a declaration of war. 

It would be ... if, say, you throw out you throw out the UN Charter, all post-1945 international understanding of "declaration of war", etc.     

[RV Pundit]

What will stop sudan from forcing down a south african plane flying Zuma and arresting him for arresting Bashir. They are treaties that define the respect each nation has for another. One of such is not to arrest the head of state of another country.

He, he, he ... That is very funny!  Still, not as funny as the claim that "Arrest Bashir is declaration of war".   

[RV Pundit]

UN treaty is a treaty as good as AU or East Africa depending on circumstance. Did Bush and US congress use your narrow UN treaty definition when they declared war against Iraq.

A treaty is a treaty is a treaty. There is no super treaty. That depend on the circumstances, the reality and practicality of each state or country.

It would be ... if, say, you throw out you throw out the UN Charter, all post-1945 international understanding of "declaration of war", etc.     

[RV Pundit]

If you cannot even arrest Sudan Ambassador..what makes you think you can arrest their president.

[MOON Ki]

What will stop sudan from forcing down a south african plane flying Zuma and arrest him for arresting Bashir.

I don't know what would stop them.   But, also, I don't know if they actually would do that.    Do you?

I was primarily interested in the idea that "Arresting  Bashir is declaration of war." and its basis.    Speculations of how Sudan might act in such circumstances are not a very satisfying explanation.   I expected you to follow up on this one:

you can go through all the vienna treaties..and if you don't find one..I'll step in.

[MOON Ki]

UN treaty is a treaty as good as AU or East Africa depending on circumstance. Did Bush and US congress use your narrow UN treaty definition when they declared war against Iraq.

A treaty is a treaty is a treaty. There is no super treaty. That depend on the circumstances, the reality and practicality of each state or country.

Even if we accept that, I still don't see the basis on which you say that "Arresting  Bashir is declaration of war."

I thought you'd give us something on this:

you can go through all the vienna treaties..and if you don't find one..I'll step in.

But I take it you won't be "stepping in" in that manner.

[RV Pundit]

Your barely attempted to google before giving up.

I was primarily interested in the idea that "Arresting  Bashir is declaration of war." and its basis.    Speculations of how Sudan might act in such circumstances are not a very satisfying explanation.   I expected you to follow up on this one:

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I don't think it would be a declaration of war. 

It would be ... if, say, you throw out you throw out the UN Charter, all post-1945 international understanding of "declaration of war", etc.     

Hehehe...I don't doubt there would be some very hurt souls in Sudan.  Especially those whose position in the food chain is entirely dependent on Bashir.  But I doubt there is a legal basis for such a claim.

Lost in this discussion.  The bazungu protecting their own by making sure Milosevic pays for the crime of slaughtering bazungu.  The African protecting his own by making sure the criminal who kills his own people gets away with it.

[RV Pundit]

When are George Bush and Tony Blair standing trial for illegally waging war in Iraq and killing millions. Perhaps if Bazungu did that..people would trust ICC as fair institution of law. Not a imperial tool.Compared to massacres and death that EU and US have visited countries all over the world..what Bashir is being accused of..is walk in the park. The US perhaps daily kill more people using their latest military gadget than Bashir ever did all his life.

Why should Bashir submit to UNSC tribubal when George Bush never cared to ask for permission to invade Iraq over dubious claims of WMD.

Lost in this discussion.  The bazungu protecting their own by making sure Milosevic pays for the crime of slaughtering bazungu.  The African protecting his own by making sure the criminal who kills his own people gets away with it.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

When are George Bush and Tony Blair standing trial for illegally waging war in Iraq and killing millions. Perhaps if Bazungu did that..people would trust ICC as fair institution of law. Not a imperial tool.Compared to massacres and death that EU and US have visited countries all over the world..what Bashir is being accused of..is walk in the park. The US perhaps daily kill more people using their latest military gadget than Bashir ever did all his life.

Why should Bashir submit to UNSC tribubal when George Bush never cared to ask for permission to invade Iraq over dubious claims of WMD.

Lost in this discussion.  The bazungu protecting their own by making sure Milosevic pays for the crime of slaughtering bazungu.  The African protecting his own by making sure the criminal who kills his own people gets away with it.

I am one of those who will readily agree that W is a war criminal.  I was saying that as far back as 2003.  I don't know about Blair. 

The Brits did invade Iraq, but I don't think they killed a lot of innocents where they could avoid it.  Their military strategies have always taken into account minimizing civilian casualties. 

The US on the other hand emphasizes minimizing US casualties before anything else.   That means weapons like cluster bombs are a highly favored item in their arsenal.

Yes, US leaders have overseen the butchery of more people than any other nation since World War II.  And they should be held accountable.

If you think it is impractical to nab Bashir, I am sure you would not have a problem seeing that it is even more impractical to nab W.

That said, I am for nabbing whichever crook you can whenever you can regardless of which one has not been nabbed.  People like Bashir come on top of the list because they would have butchered me or you for not being an Arab.

[Omollo]

Pundit

I think you should find time to look deeper in to the Darfur issue. We are letting down our African brothers and falling for Arab propaganda. I have constant run ins with my Muslim friends over Darfur. The people killed and thrown out are Black like you and me. They are Muslims.

This has nothing to do with the US. The US actually abstained during the Sudan referral. Africa was represented by Tanzania and Benin. Both voted for the resolution. Here is the vote:

The members of the Security Council that

voted in favour of the resolution
were:

• France - (State Party to the ICC Statute)
• The United Kingdom - (State Party to the ICC Statute)
• Benin -(State Party to the ICC Statute)
• Greece - (State Party to the ICC Statute)
• Denmark -(State Party to the ICC Statute)
• Argentina - (State Party to the ICC Statute)
• The United Republic of Tanzania - (State Party to the ICC Statute)
• Romania - (State Party to the ICC Statute)
• Japan - (State Party to the ICC Statute)
• The Philippines - (Non State Party to the ICC Statute)
• Russia - (Non State Party to the ICC Statute)

Abstaining:

• The United States,
• China,
• Algeria and
• Brazil

When are George Bush and Tony Blair standing trial for illegally waging war in Iraq and killing millions. Perhaps if Bazungu did that..people would trust ICC as fair institution of law. Not a imperial tool.Compared to massacres and death that EU and US have visited countries all over the world..what Bashir is being accused of..is walk in the park. The US perhaps daily kill more people using their latest military gadget than Bashir ever did all his life.

Why should Bashir submit to UNSC tribunal when George Bush never cared to ask for permission to invade Iraq over dubious claims of WMD.

Lost in this discussion.  The bazungu protecting their own by making sure Milosevic pays for the crime of slaughtering bazungu.  The African protecting his own by making sure the criminal who kills his own people gets away with it.

[RV Pundit]

Bashir maybe crook to you but hero to some people. The same with Dubya. And then who decide who is a crook or not. Should Bashir have looked the other side as Darfur rebels declared war

That said, I am for nabbing whichever crook you can whenever you can regardless of which one has not been nabbed.  People like Bashir come on top of the list because they would have butchered me or you for not being an Arab.

[RV Pundit]

Bashir will be removed one day and tried. He cannot be tried when he is PORS. He cannot be arrested by another country. That will set a dangerous precedent where we arrest diplomats and presidents and end up causing wars all over.

Bashir will most likely be overthrown violently...and will pay for his sin.

Darfur folks have to choose to continue with war and pay the price...or cow under Bashir and live.

Pundit

I think you should find time to look deeper in to the Darfur issue. We are letting down our African brothers and falling for Arab propaganda. I have constant run ins with my Muslim friends over Darfur. The people killed and thrown out are Black like you and me. They are Muslims.

This has nothing to do with the US. The US actually abstained during the Sudan referral. Africa was represented by Tanzania and Benin. Both voted for the resolution. Here is the vote:

[/list][/list]

[MOON Ki]

...people would trust ICC as fair institution of law. Not a imperial tool.

This idea of the ICC as an imperial tool is an interesting one.  Let's review some facts:

(a)  Most of people on trial or wanted for trial are Africans.

(b)  That is because almost all of them have been sent there by their fellow Africans.

(c)  During the period that the AU "leaders" (at its Extraordinary summits etc.) has been busy denouncing the court in terms similar to yours:

- Some of those places have engaged in (b).   (A spectacular example being Museveni: after all his vitriol, he handed over Ong'wen.   He has since then gone rather quiet on the ICC.)

- Numerous threats of withdrawal, individual (e.g. by Kenya) or mass (by AU "leaders") have turned out to be nothing but noise.  On the contrary, more African countries have signed up.

- A guy like Ntanganda decided that he'd rather go there than face his fellow Africans.

(d) At the 2014 Assembly of States Parties, the keynote speech was given by the president of the CAR.   She lavished praise on the ICC for "intervening" in the CAR.   Everyone clapped and cheered.

(e) The Senegalese, Kaba, was elected president of the ASP.   The African delegates were beside themselves with delight.    No talk about imperial tools or mass withdrawals.

(f) As is standard practice with the AU, all that they resolved (especially in 2013) to do about the ICC has quietly been forgotten.   

So, at a first cut, we may conclude that:

(1) All the noise about "imperial tool" is simple, manipulative bullshit by countries that most find that "tool" useful; or

(2) African leaders know when they are targets of "imperial tools", will make plenty of noise about it, but will then eagerly submit.   

Neither is very "positive".

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Bashir maybe crook to you but hero to some people. The same with Dubya. And then who decide who is a crook or not. Should Bashir have looked the other side as Darfur rebels declared war

That said, I am for nabbing whichever crook you can whenever you can regardless of which one has not been nabbed.  People like Bashir come on top of the list because they would have butchered me or you for not being an Arab.

I think they are both crooks by international law.  That is the only consistent  way to look at it.  Of course they are also dotting fathers and loving husbands.

[RV Pundit]

ICC is 1/3 africa; 1/3 europe;1/3 Asia; Now why haven't they tried crimes elsewhere. Tony Blair is always available. We know of course ICC is European court that US uses. ICC will remain imperial court until they get the balls to try crimes outside bush wars of Africa.

...people would trust ICC as fair institution of law. Not a imperial tool.

This idea of the ICC as an imperial tool is an interesting one.  Let's review some facts:

(a)  Most of people on trial or wanted for trial are Africans.

(b)  That is because almost all of them have been sent there by their fellow Africans.

(c)  During the period that the AU "leaders" (at its Extraordinary summits etc.) has been busy denouncing the court in terms similar to yours:

- Some of those places have engaged in (b).   (A spectacular example being Museveni: after all his vitriol, he handed over Ong'wen.   He has since then gone rather quiet on the ICC.)

- Numerous threats of withdrawal, individual (e.g. by Kenya) or mass (by AU "leaders") have turned out to be nothing but noise.  On the contrary, more African countries have signed up.

- A guy like Ntanganda decided that he'd rather go there than face his fellow Africans.

(d) At the 2014 Assembly of States Parties, the keynote speech was given by the president of the CAR.   She lavished praise on the ICC for "intervening" in the CAR.   Everyone clapped and cheered.

(e) The Senegalese, Kaba, was elected president of the ASP.   The African delegates were beside themselves with delight.    No talk about imperial tools or mass withdrawals.

(f) As is standard practice with the AU, all that they resolved (especially in 2013) to do about the ICC has quietly been forgotten.   

So, at a first cut, we may conclude that:

(1) All the noise about "imperial tool" is simple, manipulative bullshit by countries that most find that "tool" useful; or

(2) African leaders know when they are targets of "imperial tools", will make plenty of noise about it, but will then eagerly submit.   

Neither is very "positive".

[RV Pundit]

Agreed.Bashir though should be left to finish him term. For practical reasons. George Bush should be airlifted from Texas to ICC. That is when American will convince us that their double standard era is over..

I think they are both crooks by international law.  That is the only consistent  way to look at it.  Of course they are also dotting fathers and loving husbands.