|
Post by mank on Aug 30, 2010 21:49:00 GMT 3
Mank
I think you and I have said it several times during the constitutional debate that ultimately, the constitution is nothing but a piece of paper if the leadership has no interest in following it to the letter!
But like any covenant that is written without your sayso, you will find yourself adhering to what serves you best and ignoring the rest even with the paid of punishment. That is why we smoked or drunk whilst in school fully aware that it was against school rules. That is why there are adulterers amongst the most staunch christians notwithstanding the ten commandments!
As Bashir, anyone feeling Kibaki violated the constitution has the new document to back him up and have him thrown out of office for violating it. The Big question then will be whether such an action though perhaps correct is in the best interests of Kenya........and I have written this "interest" word so many times!! So let us stop this whining, use the power in your hands to punish Kibaki - or simply shut up and get some work done. That would be my message to all these do-gooders for Sudan. Kamale, We seem to agree then, that what is on trial is the very constitution that we have all been yapping here about. Since when did it become illogical to continue yapping? Why do you think I should shut up today, and you never told me to do so in the past? In your view, why are we at Jukwaa? What I believe is someone broke the law. With others comging to fool us, that it is in the best interest of the nation to turn a blind eye, I am not amused. We have spent a lot of resources with the excuse that things will change due to such commitment. And now marriages of convenince are being sealed to cover up a crime and keep people away from asking questions. Well, I think it is reasonable to keep talking until it is completely clear that nothing changes. Then I can give up at that time. For now, it is people who do not "shut up" that can make a difference.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Aug 30, 2010 23:45:42 GMT 3
Kamale, We seem to agree then, that what is on trial is the very constitution that we have all been yapping here about. Since when did it become illogical to continue yapping? Why do you think I should shut up today, and you never told me to do so in the past? In your view, why are we at Jukwaa? What I believe is someone broke the law. With others comging to fool us, that it is in the best interest of the nation to turn a blind eye, I am not amused. We have spent a lot of resources with the excuse that things will change due to such commitment. And now marriages of convenince are being sealed to cover up a crime and keep people away from asking questions. Well, I think it is reasonable to keep talking until it is completely clear that nothing changes. Then I can give up at that time. For now, it is people who do not "shut up" that can make a difference. Mank, Not for a single moment will I ask you no to talk or shout about anything you feel is an atrocity or is in violation of the constitution. But then I would like you to expend the energy in something productive that you can change - not what you cannot change. I am finding it pointless to engage in this Bashir debate for the simple reason I do not expect any African president to go against a fellow president. That is why tomorrow I can be I will see on SABC3 Kibaki greeting Mugabe and Mswati in Swaziland for the Comesa summit. What Kibaki and his handlers will think is in Kenya's best interest will be passed and it will be a resolution for Kenya. How we feel about Kibaki and Mugabe having a hearty laugh may be viewed as betrayal by our Zimbabwean brother, but is that not just it? The pointlessness of this Bashir Debate is that even if he did not come to Kenya, he still visited Uganda and Chad and we did not see it as a big deal and not even the ICC could whine! If you ask me, this Bashir saga is not any different to the Artur saga or the Devani saga. It is nothing but politics of ODM and PNU. My poor mother would not lose sleep that Bashir was in Kenya as she has bigger concerns about her day to day life. But Kenyans would rather spend days on end making hay when it is raining!
|
|
|
Post by mank on Aug 31, 2010 7:08:22 GMT 3
Mank,
Not for a single moment will I ask you no to talk or shout about anything you feel is an atrocity or is in violation of the constitution. But then I would like you to expend the energy in something productive that you can change - not what you cannot change.
Kamale, Perhaps I am deceiving myself, but I feel like I, with many others expressing outrage, can have an impact here. The constitution was changed because multitudes, constituting of individuals, psyched themselves into the drive to call for change. When people do not make noise, no one can tell that anything is unpleasant. At the same time, I believe this is the time for people to make "YES" count - many do not know that. If I sensitize a few people to realize this, can you really say I do not have an impact?
... I do not expect any African president to go against a fellow president.
Kamale I am not convinced that you believe the discussion is still about Kibaki not arresting Bashir. It cannot be that! Those arguing this have a problem in their heads. An argument that Kibaki should have arrested Bashir after inviting him just does not seem reasonable. The question is, WHY DID HE INVITE HIM, yet he knew well that by inviting him he was voluntarily breaking the very law he was leading in promulgation? If a deliberate abuse of the law such as this, occuring at such a crucial moment and crucial publics forced to witness it should be simply let go, which kind of crimes is this new constitution written for? We just need some upright politicians to stand up and defend the constitution against this atrocity - if they do not, then it is meaningless for us to keep entertaining ourselves with the idea that there is something meaningful coming out of all that agonization called constitutional review. You have said this in different ways yourself, but I find it very bothersome that you are preaching submission instead of being with me in challenging those who can make an impact to stand up.
It is nothing but politics of ODM and PNU. My poor mother would not lose sleep that Bashir was in Kenya as she has bigger concerns about her day to day life. But Kenyans would rather spend days on end making hay when it is raining!If your poor mother and mine, and yourself and I would lose sleep over it, and make our sleeplessness be known by the ODM and PNU, something would change. It is not raining! We just dug a well and someone is sealing it up with crap. My friend, you sound a hired gun, you are scaring the hell in me.
|
|
|
Post by tnk on Aug 31, 2010 7:52:27 GMT 3
mank
am with you on this
we wrote a document, we have it.
are the lords of impunity testing its foundations? is there a legal and lethal response? time to apply the letter of the law to all and sundry
|
|
|
Post by mank on Aug 31, 2010 19:38:52 GMT 3
Thanks TNK.
Sorry to say but I am not seeing the kind of outrage that would justify the resource and emotional cost we incurred leading to the referendum and the promulgation of the constitution. We seem too ready to pretend, or seem to enjoy the rape. And for that reason, Kamale's taunting question seems valid.
If I had any say, I would ask that UN's penalty on Kenya be so stiff that every person feels it well. That way we may be challenged to defend our naive paper before individuals undermine it too much.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Aug 31, 2010 20:55:54 GMT 3
Mank
Please do not get scared. I am no hired gun just being practical.
You ask why Kibaki considered inviting Bashir and I have suggested it may have been driven by national interest which many people disagree with. I have even entertained the thought that Kibaki inviting all and sundry that included Bashir was his way of telling us that "you guys care about little things when I think this ICC warrant hanging over Bashir means zilch when I celebrate delivering a constitution". The fact that he will not even respond to the outcry of Kenyans like yourself and instead sends Thuita to rub your noses further suggests that he does not think it is a biggie - so why should you poor Kenyans?
When I said that Kenyans sung the herald of a new Kenya but forgot that the monkeys lording it over us and who forced the clamour for change are still in office.
You rightfully challenge all those angry to use the new draft to get at Kibaki for inviting Bashir - but will they? Of course not, this is political score setting time, but the problem with the ODM lot is they are venting their anger on one who cares little. Kibaki became lame-duck last Friday and cares little what he does. So trying to ignite a PNU/ODM war is just downright dumb and that is the mistake made by ODM!!
|
|
|
Post by mank on Aug 31, 2010 22:20:36 GMT 3
Mank
Please do not get scared. I am no hired gun just being practical. Thank you Kamale. But I think your sense of being practical is unfortunate. It is a selfish stance; if just a generation ago everyone was that selfish, today we would mostly likely be slaves in a White man Kenya. You ask why Kibaki considered inviting Bashir and I have suggested it may have been driven by national interest which many people disagree with. I have even entertained the thought that Kibaki inviting all and sundry that included Bashir was his way of telling us that "you guys care about little things when I think this ICC warrant hanging over Bashir means zilch when I celebrate delivering a constitution". The fact that he will not even respond to the outcry of Kenyans like yourself and instead sends Thuita to rub your noses further suggests that he does not think it is a biggie - so why should you poor Kenyans?
I find it difficult to understand how Kibaki or anyone would think inviting Bashir can be in national interest given the obvious controversy it would attract, if nothing else. I would like you to appreciate a distinction between inviting Bashir, and inviting Sudan. Clearly the invitation was purposely meant for Bashir; he did not just come because his country was invited - he came became he was individually asked to attend, with enough assurance being given to him that ICC would not get a hand on him. So, what in this picture is of national interest? When I said that Kenyans sung the herald of a new Kenya but forgot that the monkeys lording it over us and who forced the clamour for change are still in office.
I am glad to have this discussion. The above is part of what I am trying to flash a light on. ... ideally I am saying it is not enough to have been on the "YES" side; this is the time Kenya needs to show how badly it is for "YES", knowing well that we do not expect the criminal to prosecute himself just because we have a great constitution. We need someone to wake up and side with the constitution; instead they are all playing hook-up politics as usual. You rightfully challenge all those angry to use the new draft to get at Kibaki for inviting Bashir - but will they? Of course not, this is political score setting time, but the problem with the ODM lot is they are venting their anger on one who cares little. Kibaki became lame-duck last Friday and cares little what he does. So trying to ignite a PNU/ODM war is just downright dumb and that is the mistake made by ODM!!Will they? That's the grand question. Whatever the case though, part of my intention here is to tell those who seek popularity or keep themselves busy with labeling others as anti reformers that this is the real occasion to stand up and be seen as reformers. As the silence creeps on the Bashir issue, an issue that is a clear and deliberate violation of the Constitution on day one by the very big people we wanted to tame with a working constitution, we are now witnessing the true commitment to a working constitution!
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Aug 31, 2010 23:02:57 GMT 3
Mank
By being practical, I am acknowledging the fact that the likes of Kibaki ignore anything we think, and shouting at a stone will not make it yield water. It is that simple my brother!
When you challenge these charlatans and populists to use the constitution to actualise their issues with the likes of Kibaki, they will not do that...and you can bet they will tell you at that time that Kenya needs to be united to deliver document in full.
You accused me of using strong words, but is it not hypocritical to whine about the crime of inviting Bashir and still not expect to do anything about it?
Perhaps then you can see the practical view I have of this thingy!
|
|
|
Post by merlin on Aug 31, 2010 23:12:16 GMT 3
Mank, Not for a single moment will I ask you no to talk or shout about anything you feel is an atrocity or is in violation of the constitution. But then I would like you to expend the energy in something productive that you can change - not what you cannot change. I am finding it pointless to engage in this Bashir debate for the simple reason I do not expect any African president to go against a fellow president. That is why tomorrow I can be I will see on SABC3 Kibaki greeting Mugabe and Mswati in Swaziland for the Comesa summit. What Kibaki and his handlers will think is in Kenya's best interest will be passed and it will be a resolution for Kenya. Kamalet and all, Talking and giving your opinion on this board will not change the world or the behaviour of Kibaki. Offering your opinion about what you think is right or wrong and why, helps to shape the opinion of the many readers of this board. Keep in mind that your contributions are valuable so keep doing it and avoid to sink in personal vendettas which are valueless for the readers.
|
|
|
Post by adongo23456 on Sept 1, 2010 1:24:13 GMT 3
merlin,
The kamales of this world once thought that Moi was a literal god. They said the same things they say today about Kibaki and his cohorts. The one hallmark of status quo chaps is their absolute political cowardice. They will follow anything in power.
If these chaps had their way Moi would still be wielding his rungu with his withering hands over the republic and they would still be dancing themselves lame about the genius of the man. But it took the guts and courage of Kenyans to change all that. It will take the same courage and guts to move from where we are.
The nation has come a long way but there is still a very long way to go. Kenyans are determined to get there. By that time the worms would have finished their dinner with the Kibaki's, Raila's and Kalonzo's bones and may be even adongo's and kamale's.
Kenyans are going to build the country they want. There is no question about that. As students of history we know that change takes effort and time. For those who choose to be spectators in history, such things don't make sense to them.
They whine endlessly how futile it is to have fora like this and give opinions and yet they cannot resist posting their own opinions here however vile that can be sometimes. But if it is the only thing they know, who can blame them.
We know who reads this board and we know how effective it is. Otherwise we wouldn't waste our time on it. Obviously that is why the Kamales are here too.
adongo
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 1, 2010 4:04:54 GMT 3
Mank
By being practical, I am acknowledging the fact that the likes of Kibaki ignore anything we think, and shouting at a stone will not make it yield water. It is that simple my brother!
When you challenge these charlatans and populists to use the constitution to actualise their issues with the likes of Kibaki, they will not do that...and you can bet they will tell you at that time that Kenya needs to be united to deliver document in full.
You accused me of using strong words, but is it not hypocritical to whine about the crime of inviting Bashir and still not expect to do anything about it?
Perhaps then you can see the practical view I have of this thingy! [/size] I hear you Kamale. We are reading the same page, but using the material differently. I value the discussion, and it has been civil. I believe if I did not press you I would have gone with an incorrect impression of the points you were trying to make. Now, while I still disagree with the position you have taken, I understand the thought process leading you there. Moreover, I think I understand how you ended in that position - I am ending their fast, unless I am willing to go file a case myself. Simply said, you make sense. Where is the audience for all this ranting, after all?
|
|
|
Post by tnk on Sept 1, 2010 7:45:59 GMT 3
Thanks TNK. Sorry to say but I am not seeing the kind of outrage that would justify the resource and emotional cost we incurred leading to the referendum and the promulgation of the constitution. We seem too ready to pretend, or seem to enjoy the rape. And for that reason, Kamale's taunting question seems valid. If I had any say, I would ask that UN's penalty on Kenya be so stiff that every person feels it well. That way we may be challenged to defend our naive paper before individuals undermine it too much. mank reading the news and the very strong defence by wetangula, AU and others of this bashir saga is very fascinating if what they say were true, and that they stand by their decision, how is it then that they had to shroud his visit in all manner of mystery, secrecy, etc with almost a ghost landing and equally deceptive departure. these actions are not consistent with the charade they are putting up long after. if this was a clear cut case/decision then it would have been up in the public domain like all other dignitaries. what does it demonstrate if a head of state has to travel around incognito, of what use is he to his country. and what about the head of state that similarly provides such deceit to bring in such a head of state. its so convoluted, a head of state on official duty sneaks in and out of a public function. wonder how it would reflect on us if kibaki was to be smuggled through some panya routes to attend some bash by mugabe, .... weird .... maajabu its like the president of fifa standing with the crowd during the official opening of a world cup so as not to be recognized. but aside from this distorted sense of humor, we need to pursue the legal end of this matter.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Sept 1, 2010 10:14:31 GMT 3
Martha Karua's take on El-Bashir fiasco: I am providing additional commentary on the Al Bashir visit as well as responding to the comments to my last post on the same.
It is important that the significance of the Al Bashir visit be put in perspective of our own matters as a country.
According to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Kenya needs to balance peace with its neighbors. He also alluded to the AU position that Al Bashir's arrest should be suspended until after the Sudanese referendum so as not to jeopardize the peace agreement. This may be a persuasive argument, but Al Bashir's visit tarnished and contradicted the significance of an occasion that was meant to signal a new dawn for Kenya - restoring rule of law and ending impunity.
The ICC has issued an arrest warrant for Al Bashir, the very same ICC which is investigating master minds of the Kenyan post election violence (PEV). Once arrest warrants are issued for masterminds of the PEV, how likely then will the government be to hand them to the ICC when their decision to invite Al Bashir clearly demonstrated disregard for the ICC warrant? Will justice truly be served when government fails to cooperate in the arrest and prosecution of the PEV engineers?
When I served as Minister of Justice, I tabled a special tribunal bill that would have required the local prosecution of not only the masterminds but those who carried out the PEV. Unfortunately this bill did not receive any support from the two principals and by default prosecution of the PEV masterminds was left to the ICC. And now government action is signaling justice may not be served at all! How well does failure to arrest those who caused PEV deaths, displacement and destruction serve our national interests? It does not.
Whether in or out of government, I remain undeterred in my commitment to justice, even when this is not a popular view. We cannot as a country be whimsical in our regard for the rule of law through actions such as appointing corruption suspects as Ministers or disregarding orders significant to bringing justice on PEV matters. This is impunity and it must stop! Otherwise we are nullifying the hope of a stronger, better Kenya that our new Constitution holds.
By Martha Karua, MP for Gichugu
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 1, 2010 16:04:42 GMT 3
Thanks TNK.
Sorry to say but I am not seeing the kind of outrage that would justify the resource and emotional cost we incurred leading to the referendum and the promulgation of the constitution. We seem too ready to pretend, or seem to enjoy the rape. And for that reason, Kamale's taunting question seems valid.
If I had any say, I would ask that UN's penalty on Kenya be so stiff that every person feels it well. That way we may be challenged to defend our naive paper before individuals undermine it too much. mank
reading the news and the very strong defence by wetangula, AU and others of this bashir saga is very fascinating
if what they say were true, and that they stand by their decision, how is it then that they had to shroud his visit in all manner of mystery, secrecy, etc with almost a ghost landing and equally deceptive departure. these actions are not consistent with the charade they are putting up long after. if this was a clear cut case/decision then it would have been up in the public domain like all other dignitaries. what does it demonstrate if a head of state has to travel around incognito, of what use is he to his country. and what about the head of state that similarly provides such deceit to bring in such a head of state. its so convoluted, a head of state on official duty sneaks in and out of a public function.
wonder how it would reflect on us if kibaki was to be smuggled through some panya routes to attend some bash by mugabe, .... weird ....
maajabu
its like the president of fifa standing with the crowd during the official opening of a world cup so as not to be recognized.
but aside from this distorted sense of humor, we need to pursue the legal end of this matter.
I cannot stand the nonsense coming out of Wetang'ula's mouth. And as you observe, the secrecy involved in bringing the fugitive to Kenya undermines any claim that the organizer believed the visit was in the interest of the nation - why do we need a few people tricking us into receiving a guest who is to benefit us? Why did we not get the brief about the benefit first, so we would feel privileged to have the guest? They are colour coating a crime and making an ass of all of us - peace in the Sudan and world over is all nice, but a few criminals in high offices cannot buy it through their criminal ways. They should cut the bull. But the question of the time is this, Kenya passed a new constitution to check impunity ... and the prime candidates for being put in check mocked the constitution just the moment of its promulgation, and now they continue to insult us ... so, tuta'do? ... Let the Karuas not just join us in the choir of noise making ... and let the ODM lead us in action as it did in rhetoric. Will they do this? If I had a word with Karua I would say "With all due respect Lady, your bill failed to take hold, for whatever reason. Get over it, and let it not be your eternal political sellinig point ... On the other hand, Lady, the constitution clearly characterizes the hosting of Bashir as a felony ... so go forth and demonstrate your pursuance for justice by champinioning the constitution against this atrocity. Also, stop extrapoliting an offense and making future probable outcomes more worthy attention than the immediate offense. We will deal with openness to the ICC when the time comes. For now, just attend to the law that was broken on promulgation day." We just let them get away with too much. And every politician exploits us in his or her own way. We are just too submissive for our own good.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Sept 1, 2010 17:48:29 GMT 3
Mank
I think you are taking this thing too seriously. Kenya should not necessarily be the one that babysits ICC suspects for the rest of the world. Yes Bashir has been to so many countries since the warrants were issued and is not getting arrested any time soon. They did not make a fuss in July when he went to Uganda and I think Kenyans are the ones making the most noise! Have you heard a whimper from Salva Kiir? The highest ranking fellow to talk about it was their equivalent of Moses Kuria of PNU who was also the Referendum spokesperson!!
No one should be condoning the actions of the Sudanese government in Darfur, but the problems of Sudan have a direct impact on Kenya - but I do not think they create a responsibility to arrest their president!
|
|
|
Post by tactician on Sept 1, 2010 17:57:36 GMT 3
mank,
please follow the discussion regarding the same topic on the other thread regarding whether the AU treaty requiring its members not to arrest Al Bashir is binding on Kenya
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 1, 2010 19:20:21 GMT 3
Mank
I think you are taking this thing too seriously. Kenya should not necessarily be the one that babysits ICC suspects for the rest of the world. Yes Bashir has been to so many countries since the warrants were issued and is not getting arrested any time soon. They did not make a fuss in July when he went to Uganda and I think Kenyans are the ones making the most noise! Have you heard a whimper from Salva Kiir? The highest ranking fellow to talk about it was their equivalent of Moses Kuria of PNU who was also the Referendum spokesperson!!
No one should be condoning the actions of the Sudanese government in Darfur, but the problems of Sudan have a direct impact on Kenya - but I do not think they create a responsibility to arrest their president! Kamale, (and Tactician) As far as I am concerned it is not about Sudan or even the ICC. It is about our constitution ... you know, that document we have been verbally figting about? I would not want to engage on whether "Kenya shoud'a arrested Bashir to please ICC". Bashir did not "just step on our soil". Someone invited him. If we arrested him, then it would be right to say that we lured a man to a snare, then handed him to the ICC ... that's when we would have been babysitting the ICC. My point with that, is that failing to arrest Bashir is not really the question - the question why did we invite him in the first place ... and of course the load being given to answer that is noncompelling ... Bashir is not Sudan ... to cultivate peace with Sudan we did not need Bashir in person vising Kenya. Right now, that's not the issue. The issue is "We broke our Law", as discussed on the thread Tactician is inviting me to view. The more we agree to make this about subjective arguments about the Sudan and the ICC, the more we drop the ball. We do not need constitutions, much less a better constitution, if we believe in keeping order through subjective judgements. And I agree with you, I am taking this rather seriously. Ini my book, everyone should be doing the same, at least to justify the cost to this point.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 1, 2010 19:45:15 GMT 3
mank,
please follow the discussion regarding the same topic on the other thread regarding whether the AU treaty requiring its members not to arrest Al Bashir is binding on Kenya Tactician, on the other thread I think you guys are fighting over some mumbo jumbo which, even though relevant to the katiba in general, is not really that crucial on the Bashir case. You are both on the same page when it comes to the fact that the ICC treaty is both a binding and domistic law in Kenya. Now, regardless of where we stand with respect to the AU, there is no AU requirement for nations to invite the person of every president in Africa. So, however we go about it, contravening the ICC charter, and thereby our own law, is something we did through the voluntary spirit of someone. It has nothing to do with what the AU says or does not say - the AU is being invoked as a defensive argument, after the fact. And of course the AU is perhaps happy to be engaged as they have a bone to pick with the ICC, or it could be that there was collusion in iviting the man, with the whole thing being about AU's chance to confront the ICC. What is clear is that there was non in it for Kenya, and the way I reach this conclusion is by asking "which AU law required us to invite Bashir"?
|
|
|
Post by tactician on Sept 1, 2010 19:50:04 GMT 3
mank,
please follow the discussion regarding the same topic on the other thread regarding whether the AU treaty requiring its members not to arrest Al Bashir is binding on Kenya Tactician, on the other thread I think you guys are fighting over some mumbo jumbo which, even though relevant to the katiba in general, is not really that crucial on the Bashir case. You are both on the same page when it comes to the fact that the ICC treaty is both a binding and domistic law in Kenya. Now, regardless of where we stand with respect to the AU, there is no AU requirement for nations to invite the person of every president in Africa. So, however we go about it, contravening the ICC charter, and thereby our own law, is something we did through the voluntary spirit of someone. It has nothing to do with what the AU says or does not say - the AU is being invoked as a defensive argument, after the fact. neither is there any condition of the AU or UN or ICC that requires Kenya not to invite Al Bashir. So Kenya did not break any law by inviting Al Bashir. Upon Bashir landing in Kenya, GoK had two conflicting treaties - one requiring Kenya to arrest him and another requiring Kenya not to arrest him. Either way, Kenya was going to break one of the treaties. it had to choose one of them.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 1, 2010 19:55:02 GMT 3
Tactician, on the other thread I think you guys are fighting over some mumbo jumbo which, even though relevant to the katiba in general, is not really that crucial on the Bashir case. You are both on the same page when it comes to the fact that the ICC treaty is both a binding and domistic law in Kenya. Now, regardless of where we stand with respect to the AU, there is no AU requirement for nations to invite the person of every president in Africa. So, however we go about it, contravening the ICC charter, and thereby our own law, is something we did through the voluntary spirit of someone. It has nothing to do with what the AU says or does not say - the AU is being invoked as a defensive argument, after the fact. neither is there any condition of the AU or UN or ICC that requires Kenya not to invite Al Bashir. So Kenya did not break any law by inviting Al Bashir. Upon Bashir landing in Kenya, GoK had two conflicting treaties - one requiring Kenya to arrest him and another requiring Kenya not to arrest him. Either way, Kenya was going to break one of the treaties. it had to choose one of them. Tactician, am getting confused. If we agree we are bound by the ICC charter, and have even domisticated the thing as our law, then the only reason we would invite Bashir is either to: - break our law by not arresting him (which we actually broke and are now busy looking cover up) - breaking social etiquet by posing as friends only to catch the person we lure as friend, all for the ICC What I am trying to say is, Bashir did not just happen on our soil. So in asking whey we broke the law, we should not start with "why did we not arrest him". We have to start with, "why did we invite him". If we ask the right questions, AU falls on the side, yet that is the main argument fronted for not arresting the man. Remember, so we do not miscommunicate here, Bashir was invited as the person ... that is why Wilson airport was "closed". He had intimate assurance that he would return to his country as he came.
|
|
|
Post by tactician on Sept 1, 2010 19:59:25 GMT 3
neither is there any condition of the AU or UN or ICC that requires Kenya not to invite Al Bashir. So Kenya did not break any law by inviting Al Bashir. Upon Bashir landing in Kenya, GoK had two conflicting treaties - one requiring Kenya to arrest him and another requiring Kenya not to arrest him. Either way, Kenya was going to break one of the treaties. it had to choose one of them. Tactician, am getting confused. If we agree we are bound by the ICC charter, and have even domisticated the thing as our law, then the only reason we would invite Bashir is either to: - break our law by not arresting him (which we actually broke and are now busy looking cover up) - breaking social etiquet by posing as friends only to catch the person we lure as friend, all for the ICC Mank, we have two conflicting treaties. One requires us to arrest him the other requires us NOT to arrest him. Swali ni - which one do we follow? The best thing IMHO was not to invite him at all and not have to make a decision either way. but once he arrived, then either way we would have broken our laws eitherway. PS - remember all treaties are now part of Kenya's laws!
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 1, 2010 20:09:57 GMT 3
Mank,
we have two conflicting treaties.
One requires us to arrest him
the other requires us NOT to arrest him.
Swali ni - which one do we follow?
The best thing IMHO was not to invite him at all and not have to make a decision either way.
but once he arrived, then either way we would have broken our laws eitherway.
PS - remember all treaties are now part of Kenya's laws! Tactician, I agree with every point you make, but noting that Bashir came on invitiation that was specifically packaged to him (again remember the aiport policy of the day), we cannot say we found ourselves in a dilemma of the laws, as we chose to enter that position of choosing. Until Bashir came, we had no problem. And I am sure, if we just sent an invitation to Sudan without assurances that Bashir would be safe from ICC if he came, Bashir would have stayed home. Those who invited him knew they were setting up to piss off the ICC. That is why the right question in my view is, why did we choose to put ourselves in a place where we had either to violate the ICC or the AU, when we had an option of staying neutral? If Bashir came on his own free will, then the dilemma would be the issue of discussion. In this case it is not.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Sept 1, 2010 20:16:17 GMT 3
Kamale, (and Tactician) As far as I am concerned it is not about Sudan or even the ICC. It is about our constitution ... you know, that document we have been verbally figting about? I would not want to engage on whether "Kenya shoud'a arrested Bashir to please ICC". Bashir did not "just step on our soil". Someone invited him. If we arrested him, then it would be right to say that we lured a man to a snare, then handed him to the ICC ... that's when we would have been babysitting the ICC. My point with that, is that failing to arrest Bashir is not really the question - the question why did we invite him in the first place ... and of course the load being given to answer that is noncompelling ... Bashir is not Sudan ... to cultivate peace with Sudan we did not need Bashir in person vising Kenya. Right now, that's not the issue. The issue is "We broke our Law", as discussed on the thread Tactician is inviting me to view. The more we agree to make this about subjective arguments about the Sudan and the ICC, the more we drop the ball. We do not need constitutions, much less a better constitution, if we believe in keeping order through subjective judgements. And I agree with you, I am taking this rather seriously. Ini my book, everyone should be doing the same, at least to justify the cost to this point. MankYes - someone invited Bashir to Kenya fully aware that the ICC had a warrant on him. I also presume that the person who invited Bashir was consciously aware of the resolutions of the AU General Assembly which passed a resolution binding members to ignore the ICC warrant until the issues raised by the AU were addressed by the UN Security Council. For ease of reference, here is a link to the AU Constitutive Act of which Kenya is a signatory - www.au2002.gov.za/docs/key_oau/au_act.htm - and refer to Article 23 (2) as to penalties and sanctions to be imposed on member countries that fail to comply with policies and decisions the union. I have already posted the statement from the AU defending Kenya's position. You have strongly argued about the law being broken and I can only assume that the law you refer to is the new constitution making law any international agreements Kenya enters into as well as the domestication of the ICC statute. If this is the case To the extent that the two laws provide for obedience to a specific treaty/agreement on the ICC, I agree. However, Kenya is a signatory to the UN charter as well as the AU Constitutive Act which being international agreements binding Kenya, also fall under their application in Kenyan laws as per the new constitution. Now the question which our constitution does not answer is what happens when these international conventions that we have signed are inconsistent with one another. The AU resolution on Bashir in my view bound Kenya as it was persuant to a decision and policy of the Union. The ICC Warrant obligates Kenya to arrest anyone with a warrant on their head. Just how do you reconcile this and if "for whatever reason" Kenya decided to invite Bashir, can they hide behind the AU resolution and get away with it? I ask all this because you wish us not to discuss the morality of the issue with regard to Bashir and Sudan, but within the context of Kenyan law! Please help reconcile the dilemma I find myself in! Kamale
|
|
|
Post by tactician on Sept 1, 2010 20:21:50 GMT 3
Mank,
we have two conflicting treaties.
One requires us to arrest him
the other requires us NOT to arrest him.
Swali ni - which one do we follow?
The best thing IMHO was not to invite him at all and not have to make a decision either way.
but once he arrived, then either way we would have broken our laws eitherway.
PS - remember all treaties are now part of Kenya's laws! Tactician, I agree with every point you make, but noting that Bashir came on invitiation that was specifically packaged to him (again remember the aiport policy of the day), we cannot say we found ourselves in a dilemma of the laws, as we chose to enter that position of choosing. Until Bashir came, we had no problem. And I am sure, if we just sent an invitation to Sudan without assurances that Bashir would be safe from ICC if he came, Bashir would have stayed home. Those who invited him knew they were setting up to piss off the ICC. That is why the right question in my view is, why did we choose to put ourselves in a place where we had either to violate the ICC or the AU, when we had an option of staying neutral? If Bashir came on his own free will, then the dilemma would be the issue of discussion. In this case it is not. I agree with what you are saying mank. In which case, the substantive question is - since inviting him will cause us to break either of our treaties, does inviting him advance our national interests? I beleive that this is the question that was answered in the affirmative. Only that the so called "national interest" in this particular instance was to show the middle finger to Ocampo vis a vis the PEV cases. I believe that this is the clearest warning that Kenya will not play ball with the ICC. And if push comes to shove, Kenya will just withdraw from the Rome Statute. The interested parties in the Rome Statute in bunge and Cabinet are enough to pass a motion for withdrawal. In which case it will take a resolution of the UN security council to have Ocampo take the Kenyan case....where China awaits with a veto. I think we are not seeing the geo-political interests of China is this whole deal...I do not think GoK can just pull off moves like these without assurances from a makor world power. Otherwise, the sanctions we would be headed to are major. Of course, the US, UK, EU etc cannot punish Kenya too much...they need it as their operational base in the region. Case in point - US had said that it will not give any military aid to countries which ratify the ICC treaty. I wonder if they implemented that threat against Kenya!
|
|
|
Post by adongo23456 on Sept 1, 2010 20:42:20 GMT 3
tactician,
You are engaging in wishful thinking. Those hoping that Kenya will pull out of the Rome Statute to save a handful of killers are dreaming. The forces of impunity have one problem in Kenya. There is a virtual 90% consensus among the public that they do not want impunity.
Once people get indicted they will ran to their tribes to save their ass and then is when things will start falling apart for them. Some are already positioning themselves to hawk their tribal votes. The moment they are indicted by Ocampo even their tribes won't save them. They will simply become fugitives.
Ocampo's people are already in Kenya as we speak and nobody can even dare question what they are doing leave alone fight them. Just today Saitoti and the entire security committee met with Ocampo's reps in Nairobi and they all said everything is going as planned. So when will the forces of impunity you are boasting about kick out Ocampo. The investigations are almost complete. Why would Ocampo need the UN to ask him to investigate the Kenyan case. It is all but finished. The only thing left is to issue indictments and that is done by the ICC judges not even Ocampo, nor the UN can do that. Once Ocampo presents evidence to the ICC judges they will make their decision.
The only hope for the merchants of impunity is to hope that the ICC judges reject Ocampo's evidence and refuse to issue indictments. That is where all those who want support these people need to focus their prayers.
Once the indictments are issued nobody cares. Kibaki can hide them and refuse to hand them over and then they just have to live like figutives like Mr. Filicien. They will be dead meat for all practical purposes.
I don't know what the US giving arms to those who signed the ICC statute have to do with anything here. There is not treaty or resolution signed anywhere stipulating that US must not give weapons to those who signed the Rome Statute. The idea was to scare enough countries so that they don't get the 60 countries needed to operationalize the statute. It failed to work.
adongo
|
|