White House Ambivalent On Sudan Charges

Officials Cautiously Back International Court's Move Against Al-Bashir, Without Endorsing Court

(AP)  For years, the Bush administration has taken a strong stance denouncing atrocities in Sudan's Darfur region and labeling them genocide.

Yet it offered only an ambivalent response when the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court filed genocide charges against Sudan's president.

For all its criticism of President Omar al-Bashir, the administration is reluctant to take steps that lend legitimacy to a court whose jurisdiction it has questioned and whose treaty it refuses to sign.

The administration offered some praise Monday for prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo's charge.

"In our view recognition of the humanitarian disaster and the atrocities that have gone on there is a positive thing," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

McCormack emphasized, however, that the U.S. view of the ICC is well known.

"We make our own determinations according to our own laws, our own regulations with respect to who should be subject to war crimes and genocide-related statutes. The ICC is a separate matter, and we are not part of the ICC," he said.

Some analysts say the administration is conflicted.

"I think there is probably a tension within the administration between those who would find the ICC to be an irritant and an obstacle to peace efforts in Darfur, whereas there are others who may be arguing that this might facilitate those efforts," said David Scheffer, director of Northwestern Law School's Center for International Human Rights.

As U.S. ambassador at large for war crimes issues in the Clinton administration, Scheffer negotiated the 1998 Rome Statute, which established the ICC. Clinton signed it in Dec. 31, 2000. The document was never submitted to the Senate for ratification, and the Bush administration withdrew the signature.

The Bush administration opposes the court because of suspicions that its jurisdiction is too broad and fears that American servicemen fighting abroad or the officials who command them might not be safe from politically motivated prosecution.

The administration's mixed feelings about the ICC are not new. Despite its frequent criticism of the ICC, it effectively allowed the investigation of al-Bashir when it abstained on a U.N. Security Council resolution in 2005 instead of using its veto. That gave the court the authority that led to Monday's indictment.

"At least as a matter of policy, not only do we not oppose the ICC's investigation and prosecutions in Sudan but we support its investigation and prosecution of those atrocities," John Bellinger, the State Department's top legal adviser, later told The Associated Press.

The State Department also strongly supported ICC indictments in 2005 of five Ugandans accused of war crimes in the country's two-decade-old civil conflict.

The move against al-Bashir may be raising another concern, however, because it is an indictment against a current head of state.

"The U.S. is concerned about keeping U.S. officials and particularly the head of state out of the court's jurisdiction," said Madeline Morris, a professor at Duke Law School.

Nonetheless, McCormack says the United States already is considering a recent request from the ICC for information involving Darfur but not al-Bashir.

"The basis of a response probably would be what information we had," he said.

[samsel3]

Darfur is about OIL nothing more, nothing less.

The Saudi''s have invested heavily in Sudan. The people of Darfur will never see any benefit from their countries wealth. US strategy is to let them all die for Big Oil & Saudi investors.

Sudan is one of seven countries on the administrations HIT LIST........

Amy Goodman''s interview with General Wesley Clark. Clark stated he viewed a defense department memo that described how the U.S. was going to take out seven countries in five years...."starting with Iraq,then Syria and Lebanon, then Libya,then Somalia and Sudan, and back to Iran."


And the extermination continues............

[samsel3]

Darfur is about OIL nothing more, nothing less.

The Saudi''s have invested heavily in Sudan. The people of Darfur will never see any benefit from their countries wealth. US strategy is to let them all die for Big Oil & Saudi investors.

Sudan is one of seven countries on the administrations HIT LIST........

And the extermination continues............

[cmp271]

Let''s add to the Bush Administration''s war crime list...Bush''s involvement with the Committee of 300 and their plan to destroy America, as well as their tactic of the Twin Towers being an inside job, uncontroled demolition as evidenced by tower 7 going down for no reason..then add all the money spent on going to Afghanistan and Iraq and the lives lost!! The fact the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi, and so is bin laden and his family, who happen to be friends with the Bush family, and were gotten out when 9/11 happened courtesy of Bush!! What agenda does Saudi have to bring our country down-how obvious they are muslim!!

Then add in...Plus taking away more of our civil right to privacy as guaranteed by our original Constitution, and not this latest right to spy on ordinary Americans.

WAKE UP AMERICA, BEFORE YOU WAKE UP AND THINK YOU ARE IN THE PREVIOUS U.S.S.R!!!

Look up the committe of 300 and the illuminati, it makes sense. Americans need to stop it before it is too late!!! WAKE UP AMERICA!!

[jongood65]

JonGood65 - this article is about the White Houses complete and utter apathy towards the massacre in Darfur. Take your empty and ignorant anti-Democratic rants elsewhere.

That being said, wasn''''t human rights the most recent excuse for the Iraqi invasion? So, what is stopping us from invading Sudan, and removing this man who is reponsible for MORE deaths than Saddam?

Oh, right - this is Africa. No oil.
Posted by rwassel at 12:30 PM : Jul 15, 2008
====================

Hey weaselboy, I was merely responding to a post offered by one of your left wing pink hyphenated-American suckbuddies.

BTW: Do you truly believe that Sen. NObama will use American military force in Sudan?? Didn''t another Democrat President try something similar in Somalia??

That micro-managing job from the White House went well didn''t it.

[rwassel]

JonGood65 - this article is about the White Houses complete and utter apathy towards the massacre in Darfur. Take your empty and ignorant anti-Democratic rants elsewhere.

That being said, wasn''t human rights the most recent excuse for the Iraqi invasion? So, what is stopping us from invading Sudan, and removing this man who is reponsible for MORE deaths than Saddam?

Oh, right - this is Africa. No oil.

[brianbwb-2009]

"We make our own determinations according to our own laws, our own regulations with respect to who should be subject to war crimes and genocide-related statutes."

What this nut just said is that the US no longer recognizes the Geneva convention, to which it was a signatory. It is obvious that this stance is taken because the Bush administration knows good and well that it is guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, as defined by the Geneva convention.

[jongood65]

Hopefully, our next president will. We have a lot of Pols going back decades that should get a one way ticket to the Hague.
Posted by Impeach__W at 10:00 AM : Jul 15, 2008
=======================

I agree....Take this "Chicken Little" Chucky Schumwad for example who has been talking "recession" since the day the Democrats regained control of Congress in 2006. Finally just this last week we all got to see how dangerous this kind of political abuse is when "Chicken Little" Chucky Schumwad launching this kind of partisan stench out his butt cheeks caused a run on one of California''s largest banks.

A bank that would have remained solvent, and the taxpayers wouldn''t be picking up millions in losses for, had this partisan little b*i*t*c*h kept his mouth shut.

Or, how about other very reason events such as these former Democrat big shots who not head up outfits like FreddiMac, and FannieMae using their political connections in Congress to cover the theivery they had been carrying on.

Or, how about Sen. Dodd, Conrad, Reid, and NObama and their recent "sweetheart" land and housing deals that no non-politically useful person would have gotten??

And the list just keeps building....Hillary Clinton, DiFi, SanFran Nan.

[anecdote1]

CBS, you could have stated the title as such:

"White House Ambivalent"

That way you could use the same title on almost any story and save some typing.

[lochlan-2009]

When did we become so weak and ammoral, that we lost the fortitude to impeach an evil, and criminal president?

Posted by toldyouso12

It happened in as short as eight years. If you notice around the world, their are protests about oil prices, food prices, government corruption, etc., but here in the United States, everyone is afraid of the tyrannical government that can step in and declare you an enemy combatant for several years for protesting their agenda.

Seperation of powers, was a cornerstone of this country. When Bush became president, the criminal administration controled all three branches and dessimated this countries liberties and freedoms in several short years.

The terrorists killed 2800 people and destroyed two buildings. The Bush Administration and the GOP congress destroyed our constitution, liberties and basic human rights, all while plundering the countries treasury through war profiteering and market manipulation.

[briannorwood]

"White House Ambivalent On Sudan Charges"

Hey, what''s a little torture and crime against humanity among friends?

[lochlan-2009]

"Officials Cautiously Back International Court''s Move Against Al-Bashir, Without Endorsing Court"

Of course, they''ve done the majority of the crimes that Sudan''s president has been convicted of.

[toldyouso12]

Our President and White House are not against mass murdering regimes per se--unless oil is involved. As for our opinion on the international court---Bush does have to be careful--after all, he is also guilty and could face prosecution for war crimes. Saying the wrong thing now, could come back to haunt him at some point in the future.

When did we become so weak and ammoral, that we lost the fortitude to impeach an evil, and criminal president?

[j_flood]

The White House is ambivalent about most things abroad excepting, oil and white people.

[stn_sage]

C''MON now! The reason Bush is not wholeheartedly supporting the International Criminal Court in it''s prosecution of al-Bashir, is that Bush himself could be dragged before it someday!

He''s not going to lend legitimacy to this court, only to find that someday charges are pressed against him and he''s hauled into it!

Therefore, he''s got to deny it has any legitimacy to try al-Bashir, and by extension, anyone else---especially HIM!