|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Oct 18, 2013 19:22:33 GMT 3
Oga Chief-Oh, while trying to justify the decision he and his friend have made again, has come up with something that attempts to give something to every side. People can therefore pick and choose. Fortunately, the matter will soon be addressed by the ICC Appeals Chamber. That said, his Separate Concurring Opinion is worth a slow and careful read, for the many points he makes that are not in the Majority Decision. www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1667187.pdfFootnotes are usually dull, but in this case Nos. 20 and 29 are "interesting". |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Oct 20, 2013 22:31:15 GMT 3
Oga Chief-Oh, while trying to justify the decision he and his friend have made again, has come up with something that attempts to give something to every side. People can therefore pick and choose. Fortunately, the matter will soon be addressed by the ICC Appeals Chamber. That said, his Separate Concurring Opinion is worth a slow and careful read, for the many points he makes that are not in the Majority Decision. www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1667187.pdfFootnotes are usually dull, but in this case Nos. 20 and 29 are "interesting". Well I can see you only note the two footnotes as the only significant point of the opinion. You seem ready to dismiss the whole opinion and judgement hoping that the appeals chamber will throw out these decisions and the two accused will sit through their trials like every other criminal suspect. And that happens to be your problem! You refuse to debate the merits and demerits of the cases for no other reason by political partisan reasons which fit in very well with your nationality divorce with Kenya! |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Oct 20, 2013 22:48:56 GMT 3
Oga Chief-Oh, while trying to justify the decision he and his friend have made again, has come up with something that attempts to give something to every side. People can therefore pick and choose. Fortunately, the matter will soon be addressed by the ICC Appeals Chamber. That said, his Separate Concurring Opinion is worth a slow and careful read, for the many points he makes that are not in the Majority Decision. www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1667187.pdfFootnotes are usually dull, but in this case Nos. 20 and 29 are "interesting". Well I can see you only note the two footnotes as the only significant point of the opinion. You seem ready to dismiss the whole opinion and judgement hoping that the appeals chamber will throw out these decisions and the two accused will sit through their trials like every other criminal suspect. And that happens to be your problem! You refuse to debate the merits and demerits of the cases for no other reason by political partisan reasons which fit in very well with your nationality divorce with Kenya! Once again, you are too much in a hurry and are not reading carefully. See: his Separate Concurring Opinion is worth a slow and careful read, for the many points he makes that are not in the Majority Decision.
Nowhere do I make any statement that would lead anyone to conclude that I "seem ready to dismiss the whole opinion and judgement hoping ... ". As a matter simple logic, the observation that two footnotes are "interesting", in contrast to usually dull footnotes, is not equivalent to stating that they are the only important or even "interesting" points in the document. I am unclear as to what you would like me to debate. If you are after my comments on the two cases, the Jukwaa archives should have plenty; ask Onyango Oloo how to access them. |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Oct 20, 2013 22:49:53 GMT 3
Well I can see you only note the two footnotes as the only significant point of the opinion. You seem ready to dismiss the whole opinion and judgement hoping that the appeals chamber will throw out these decisions and the two accused will sit through their trials like every other criminal suspect. And that happens to be your problem! You refuse to debate the merits and demerits of the cases for no other reason by political partisan reasons which fit in very well with your nationality divorce with Kenya! Once again, you are not reading carefully. See: his Separate Concurring Opinion is worth a slow and careful read, for the many points he makes that are not in the Majority Decision.
Nowhere do I make any statement that would lead anyone to conclude that I "seem ready to dismiss the whole opinion and judgement hoping ... ". As a matter simple logic the observation that two footnotes are "interesting", in contrast to usually dull footnotes, is not equivalent to stating that they are the only important or even "interesting" points in the document. I am unclear as to what you would like me to debate. If you are after my comments on the two cases, the Jukwaa archives should have plenty; ask Onyango Oloo how to access them. Mmmmmm.....so you issue is with the many points in the concurring opinion that are not in the majority decision? Is that not the reason they are not in the main decision and have been qualified to be read as his own opinion in support of the main decision? All you could see was MDGs and Victims.....should you not have noted his quoting Mutunga or even the Kenya constitution vis a vis the AU resolution and how people get things all wrong? Come on you can do better than this!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Oct 20, 2013 22:56:56 GMT 3
Mmmmmm.....so you issue is with the many points in the concurring opinion that are not in the majority decision? Is that not the reason they are not in the main decision and have been qualified to be read as his own opinion in support of the main decision? All you could see was MDGs and Victims.....should you not have noted his quoting Mutunga or even the Kenya constitution vis a vis the AU resolution and how people get things all wrong? Come on you can do better than this!!!! Yet once again, you have failed to read properly. Nowhere do I state or even suggest that I have an issue with the many points. It is not necessary that I note anything; I imagine that readers are capable of going through the document and determining for themselves the "worth" that I referred to. But it helps, the very title of the thread ought to give some idea of what I think the "many points" are about. |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Oct 21, 2013 10:16:00 GMT 3
Mmmmmm.....so you issue is with the many points in the concurring opinion that are not in the majority decision? Is that not the reason they are not in the main decision and have been qualified to be read as his own opinion in support of the main decision? All you could see was MDGs and Victims.....should you not have noted his quoting Mutunga or even the Kenya constitution vis a vis the AU resolution and how people get things all wrong? Come on you can do better than this!!!! Yet once again, you have failed to read properly. Nowhere do I state or even suggest that I have an issue with the many points. It is not necessary that I note anything; I imagine that readers are capable of going through the document and determining for themselves the "worth" that I referred to. But it helps, the very title of the thread ought to give some idea of what I think the "many points" are about. You are a funny one......so we are now down to counting points hence 'many' gets disqualified? |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Oct 22, 2013 12:40:47 GMT 3
Oga Chief-Oh, while trying to justify the decision he and his friend have made again, has come up with something that attempts to give something to every side. People can therefore pick and choose. Fortunately, the matter will soon be addressed by the ICC Appeals Chamber. That said, his Separate Concurring Opinion is worth a slow and careful read, for the many points he makes that are not in the Majority Decision. www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1667187.pdfFootnotes are usually dull, but in this case Nos. 20 and 29 are "interesting". Njakip Mark your diary... 0900Hours Hague time Friday 25th October 2013...the appeals chamber will make its ruling. |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Oct 22, 2013 15:51:20 GMT 3
Njakip Mark your diary... 0900Hours Hague time Friday 25th October 2013...the appeals chamber will make its ruling. Kamale: I can see that you are excited about this, although the why is unclear. Even less clear is why you think I should be excited about it. On this matter, I expressed my views several months ago: what is important is that the trials proceed; the detailed arrangements are secondary. See jukwaa.proboards.com/thread/8308/alert-skip-trial-forget-skypewhere I wrote As much as I hate the idea of Ruto living the good life as VP while IDPs still rot in camps, after 5+ years since the PEV, I am for getting on with the trial as quickly as possible. To my mind, the decision is a two-edged sword, in that a verdict will now be reached, regardless of whether Ruto is there, whereas in other circumstances he might have put that off indefinitely.
A Bashir-like situation would mean that even in the best case, a trial could not start until 2018---ten years after the PEV---a situation that would be problematic in many ways and far from satisfactory for the victims. I consider if far better to have a trial now, and I think the best thing would be for the prosecutor to not appeal and instead let things proceed quickly.
and I personally would have preferred that Ruto sit in the dock, sweating day after day, for years. Nevertheless, the key point is that there be a trial as soon as possible and especially after more than 5 years, and, from a purely objective viewpoint, Ruto's presence or absence should not matter in the presentation of evidence, witness testimonies, ... The court regularly receives a report on the status of the victims, and a recurring statement is that the whole matter is taking too long. It is important especially for them that things get going. And we have heard about the bribed witnesses, the threatened witnesses, the disappeared witnesses. The sooner the witnesses get to tell their story, the better. For all others, the truth needs to come out fully.
|
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Oct 22, 2013 19:08:32 GMT 3
Njakip Mark your diary... 0900Hours Hague time Friday 25th October 2013...the appeals chamber will make its ruling. Kamale: I can see that you are excited about this, although the why is unclear. Even less clear is why you think I should be excited about it. On this matter, I expressed my views several months ago: what is important is that the trials proceed; the detailed arrangements are secondary. See jukwaa.proboards.com/thread/8308/alert-skip-trial-forget-skypewhere I wrote As much as I hate the idea of Ruto living the good life as VP while IDPs still rot in camps, after 5+ years since the PEV, I am for getting on with the trial as quickly as possible. To my mind, the decision is a two-edged sword, in that a verdict will now be reached, regardless of whether Ruto is there, whereas in other circumstances he might have put that off indefinitely.
A Bashir-like situation would mean that even in the best case, a trial could not start until 2018---ten years after the PEV---a situation that would be problematic in many ways and far from satisfactory for the victims. I consider if far better to have a trial now, and I think the best thing would be for the prosecutor to not appeal and instead let things proceed quickly.
and I personally would have preferred that Ruto sit in the dock, sweating day after day, for years. Nevertheless, the key point is that there be a trial as soon as possible and especially after more than 5 years, and, from a purely objective viewpoint, Ruto's presence or absence should not matter in the presentation of evidence, witness testimonies, ... The court regularly receives a report on the status of the victims, and a recurring statement is that the whole matter is taking too long. It is important especially for them that things get going. And we have heard about the bribed witnesses, the threatened witnesses, the disappeared witnesses. The sooner the witnesses get to tell their story, the better. For all others, the truth needs to come out fully.
Moonki Why should I be excited or even you for that matter? I was just being a little helpful following what you wrote: Oga Chief-Oh, while trying to justify the decision he and his friend have made again, has come up with something that attempts to give something to every side. People can therefore pick and choose. Fortunately, the matter will soon be addressed by the ICC Appeals Chamber. I expect (with an element of confidence!) that the appeals chamber will uphold the decision of the trial chamber for the ICC must have come to its senses about its own credibility and also to forestall the idea of having runaways they cannot arrest and who the world will work with even if not brazenly! |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Oct 24, 2013 15:41:58 GMT 3
I expect (with an element of confidence!) that the appeals chamber will uphold the decision of the trial chamber for the ICC must have come to its senses about its own credibility and also to forestall the idea of having runaways they cannot arrest and who the world will work with even if not brazenly! I don't share your confidence. I had hoped that the OTP would not appeal so that we would have a trial either way and without the surrounding circus. I think Bensouda has a strong case, and it is hard to see how the Appeals Chamber would fail to quash what is, legally, a very peculiar decision. This was my view a few months ago: "The gourd plus associated equipment tell me that the Appeals Chamber will give everyone something: (a) For the OTP, Victims, etc., a statement that the "wholesale" excusal of Ruto won't fly; (b) for the criminals and their supporters, the obvious statement that the court can from time to time excuse person from attendance, e.g. when the person is sick, or has to attend a funeral, etc., as would be the case in any court."Read more: jukwaa.proboards.com/thread/8578/alert-granted-leave-appeal-excusal?page=1&scrollTo=124405#ixzz2ieBj7l6g But who knows; we'll find out soon enough. |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Oct 25, 2013 8:36:44 GMT 3
I expect (with an element of confidence!) that the appeals chamber will uphold the decision of the trial chamber for the ICC must have come to its senses about its own credibility and also to forestall the idea of having runaways they cannot arrest and who the world will work with even if not brazenly! I don't share your confidence. I had hoped that the OTP would not appeal so that we would have a trial either way and without the surrounding circus. I think Bensouda has a strong case, and it is hard to see how the Appeals Chamber would fail to quash what is, legally, a very peculiar decision. This was my view a few months ago: "The gourd plus associated equipment tell me that the Appeals Chamber will give everyone something: (a) For the OTP, Victims, etc., a statement that the "wholesale" excusal of Ruto won't fly; (b) for the criminals and their supporters, the obvious statement that the court can from time to time excuse person from attendance, e.g. when the person is sick, or has to attend a funeral, etc., as would be the case in any court."Read more: jukwaa.proboards.com/thread/8578/alert-granted-leave-appeal-excusal?page=1&scrollTo=124405#ixzz2ieBj7l6g But who knows; we'll find out soon enough. We will certainly know in the next two hours. This case continues today if my confidence is confirmed or stalls for a very long time if it is not! I have a feeling that the deferral request is heavily dependent on whether the court grants the excusal or not! |
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Oct 25, 2013 10:31:54 GMT 3
I don't share your confidence. I had hoped that the OTP would not appeal so that we would have a trial either way and without the surrounding circus. I think Bensouda has a strong case, and it is hard to see how the Appeals Chamber would fail to quash what is, legally, a very peculiar decision. This was my view a few months ago: "The gourd plus associated equipment tell me that the Appeals Chamber will give everyone something: (a) For the OTP, Victims, etc., a statement that the "wholesale" excusal of Ruto won't fly; (b) for the criminals and their supporters, the obvious statement that the court can from time to time excuse person from attendance, e.g. when the person is sick, or has to attend a funeral, etc., as would be the case in any court."Read more: jukwaa.proboards.com/thread/8578/alert-granted-leave-appeal-excusal?page=1&scrollTo=124405#ixzz2ieBj7l6g But who knows; we'll find out soon enough. We will certainly know in the next two hours. This case continues today if my confidence is confirmed or stalls for a very long time if it is not! I have a feeling that the deferral request is heavily dependent on whether the court grants the excusal or not! By the way you guys who argue this court. On excusals --from consequent attendance: why is it that in normal processes in regular justice systems those charged with serious crimes --like manslaughter-- can never be granted waivers [non-appearance] citing their other engagements? They are always remanded in custody! On which principles does this ICC of yours operate which grants suspects of mass murder freedom to go back and murder some more? I call it double standards and hypocritical fanfare for the weak minded. If a murder charge is serious, you get remanded in custody until acquittal. All those high and mighty judges at the ICC, can they pinpoint cases in their own home countries, where a multiple-murder suspect was granted rights to no attendance, coz of his other important business elsewhere? We should recognise an intellectual cock=up for what it is. This court is built on faulty jurisdiction and interpretation of justice. It is better than nothing though, and in any case far above anything Willy Mutunga and his fellow goons in gowns can ever display, but I still consider it beneath the dignity of the President of my country [African or European]. But i do not consider it beneath the dignity of a deputy president. For me then, Ruto can attend, Uhuru No. But if Uhuru attends, I will officially refer to him as The Dog. Nationalist pride on the Kenyan flag. A dog will be a dog, even if president. |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Oct 25, 2013 10:35:32 GMT 3
I don't share your confidence. I had hoped that the OTP would not appeal so that we would have a trial either way and without the surrounding circus. I think Bensouda has a strong case, and it is hard to see how the Appeals Chamber would fail to quash what is, legally, a very peculiar decision. This was my view a few months ago: "The gourd plus associated equipment tell me that the Appeals Chamber will give everyone something: (a) For the OTP, Victims, etc., a statement that the "wholesale" excusal of Ruto won't fly; (b) for the criminals and their supporters, the obvious statement that the court can from time to time excuse person from attendance, e.g. when the person is sick, or has to attend a funeral, etc., as would be the case in any court."Read more: jukwaa.proboards.com/thread/8578/alert-granted-leave-appeal-excusal?page=1&scrollTo=124405#ixzz2ieBj7l6g But who knows; we'll find out soon enough. We will certainly know in the next two hours. This case continues today if my confidence is confirmed or stalls for a very long time if it is not! I have a feeling that the deferral request is heavily dependent on whether the court grants the excusal or not! Njakip Your gourd and beads seems to have been facing the right direction of the sun....and my confidence is shattered!!! Now for the next phase which is perhaps the more unpleasant one! Kenya will be moving for the deferral in full force now and if granted, will mean that the trials are off for at least a year and could be renewed. A deferral of course is unfair to victims whose expectations of justice if any will be affected by the delay in hearing the case. An even worse situation will be a decision of the duo to decide that they do not intend to continue appearing in court leading to warrants of arrest. Whilst Sang would be a beneficiary of his court case not proceeding in absence of Ruto, the credibility of the court will be at risk if indeed the AU countries decide not to help the ICC effect the warrants of arrest. A rather daft ruling of you ask me....! |
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Oct 25, 2013 10:43:59 GMT 3
We will certainly know in the next two hours. This case continues today if my confidence is confirmed or stalls for a very long time if it is not! I have a feeling that the deferral request is heavily dependent on whether the court grants the excusal or not! Njakip Your gourd and beads seems to have been facing the right direction of the sun....and my confidence is shattered!!! Now for the next phase which is perhaps the more unpleasant one! Kenya will be moving for the deferral in full force now and if granted, will mean that the trials are off for at least a year and could be renewed. A deferral of course is unfair to victims whose expectations of justice if any will be affected by the delay in hearing the case. An even worse situation will be a decision of the duo to decide that they do not intend to continue appearing in court leading to warrants of arrest. Whilst Sang would be a beneficiary of his court case not proceeding in absence of Ruto, the credibility of the court will be at risk if indeed the AU countries decide not to help the ICC effect the warrants of arrest. A rather daft ruling of you ask me....! , at least Njakip's court is finally showing some cojones. It's been bending over backwards to Uhuruto too much of late making a mockery of the justice system... If the Uhuruto go the absence way by falling back on the AU then they'll be making a grave mistake. Personally I still believe they would gain more political capital by attending rather than avoiding the trials. Especially in Uhuru's case as he has already been given a major concession in terms of when he can attend or not attend sessions. Uhuru needs to think long term before he pulls an al-Bashir on the ICC... |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Oct 25, 2013 11:00:21 GMT 3
B6k
Let us take this a step at a time.... The next phase of this saga is the application for deferral at the UNSC. Whilst it is possible they could get the deferral, of course the concern is the impact of the deferral to the cases, witnesses and most importantly the victims who seek justice. The deferral process is a political decision rather than a judicial decision and therein lies the problem. Should we allow a political process to interfere with the search for justice for the victims? The fact that the UNSC has a role in the management of justice at the ICC is bad enough.....!
Let us deal with this phase before going into the phase of ignoring the court leading to warrants being issued!
Kamale
PS. At this rate, even the well argued case of Uhuru to seek a permanent stay (dismissal) of his case will not meet favour with the court.
|
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Oct 25, 2013 13:31:36 GMT 3
B6k Let us take this a step at a time.... The next phase of this saga is the application for deferral at the UNSC. Whilst it is possible they could get the deferral, of course the concern is the impact of the deferral to the cases, witnesses and most importantly the victims who seek justice. The deferral process is a political decision rather than a judicial decision and therein lies the problem. Should we allow a political process to interfere with the search for justice for the victims? The fact that the UNSC has a role in the management of justice at the ICC is bad enough.....! Let us deal with this phase before going into the phase of ignoring the court leading to warrants being issued! Kamale PS. At this rate, even the well argued case of Uhuru to seek a permanent stay (dismissal) of his case will not meet favour with the court. , political considerations interfere with justice all the time. Just look at how Uncle Sam used his veto power to ensure his soldiers & citizens wouldn't be hauled off to the ICC for any war crimes committed in Iraq by securing UN Resolution 1422 from the UNSC. They reapplied for a similar immunity blanket a year later under UN Resolution 1487. The spanner in the works turned out to be their soldiers treatment of prisoners at Abu Graib after which they no longer pressed for a similar resolution the following year. So Uhuruto can pursue the deferral angle, but KE not being a global super power that wields a mighty big stick, whether militarily or economically, i doubt it will get very far. That's why I forecast Uhuru deciding to do a runner and ignoring his constitutional duty (international treaties signed by KE must be binding) to attend the trial come November 12 by falling back on the AU resolution. Ruto has no option as he's already deep in the mix of his trials and really has nothing to lose by attending all future sessions anyway as his defence appears to be sound up to now. Why would the UNSC having a management role in justice at the ICC be a bad thing? The UN is a body made up of a group of nations just like the ICC is a justice system made up by a admittedly smaller group of nations who (at least on paper) had similar ideas on how international criminal cases ought to be tackled. Pray tell... |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Oct 25, 2013 17:21:19 GMT 3
Njakip Your gourd and beads seems to have been facing the right direction of the sun....and my confidence is shattered!!! Now for the next phase which is perhaps the more unpleasant one! Kenya will be moving for the deferral in full force now and if granted, will mean that the trials are off for at least a year and could be renewed. A deferral of course is unfair to victims whose expectations of justice if any will be affected by the delay in hearing the case. An even worse situation will be a decision of the duo to decide that they do not intend to continue appearing in court leading to warrants of arrest. Whilst Sang would be a beneficiary of his court case not proceeding in absence of Ruto, the credibility of the court will be at risk if indeed the AU countries decide not to help the ICC effect the warrants of arrest. A rather daft ruling of you ask me....! Kamale: The ruling is not daft and properly reverses what legally was a funny decision. Nowhere in the world are major criminals allowed to roam freely around the scene of the crime, lording it over the victims and showing up in court only at their leisure. Oga Chief-Oh & Sidekick meant well, and their decision could have helped avoid what are likely to headaches all around; for those reasons I found the decision partially acceptable. Legally, however, the 53 pages of the decision shows a struggle to make the thing fly. (In the Kenyatta one, even 55 pages were not enough for the struggle; Oga Chief-Oh had to add another 20.) Deferral? Anything is possible in this world. But as things stand right now, I see that happening only when, as they say in the village, chickens learn to grow teeth. |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Oct 25, 2013 18:31:44 GMT 3
Especially in Uhuru's case as he has already been given a major concession in terms of when he can attend or not attend sessions. This ruling has pretty much put paid to that one. His Excellency is now in exactly the same position as His Deputy Excellency; all that remains to confirm that is the legal paperwork. |
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Oct 25, 2013 19:06:14 GMT 3
Especially in Uhuru's case as he has already been given a major concession in terms of when he can attend or not attend sessions. This ruling has pretty much put paid to that one. His Excellency is now in exactly the same position as His Deputy Excellency; all that remains to confirm that is the legal paperwork. Not so fast, young grasshopper. The OTP would first need to appeal Uhuru's excusal before Ruto's ruling can be used to apply to his case as well. Keep in mind today's Ruto ruling is based on an appeal lodged by the OTP back in June. I bet you my pet goat to your pet beagle that Bensouda will not appeal against the Uhuru excusal... |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Oct 25, 2013 19:25:24 GMT 3
This ruling has pretty much put paid to that one. His Excellency is now in exactly the same position as His Deputy Excellency; all that remains to confirm that is the legal paperwork. Not so fast, young grasshopper. The OTP would first need to appeal Uhuru's excusal before Ruto's ruling can be used to apply to his case as well. Keep in mind today's Ruto ruling is based on an appeal lodged by the OTP back in June. I bet you my pet goat to your pet beagle that Bensouda will not appeal against the Uhuru excusal... Bensouda has three options: (a) request leave to appeal the Uhuru excusal, which leave would no doubt the granted and with the same result as in the present case; (b) ask the Trial Chamber to reconsider its excusal-decision; (c) do nothing, as you suggest/predict. The last is out of the question. One of the first two will definitely happen, and I expect it to happen by next week. Bensouda has to make such an application, if only because she is obliged to treat all "equally". Besides, the fact that one is His Excellency while the other is a mere His Deputy Excellency means bugger-all to her; a criminal is a criminal. The OTP may have applied in June but that was in the absence of clear guidelines on the matter. The Appeals Chamber has now established the guidelines, and they can be put into force very quickly. Please have your pet goat ready for collection by the end of next week. (I like goat-meat, especially when done West-Indian style.) Asante sana. |
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Oct 25, 2013 19:29:25 GMT 3
Not so fast, young grasshopper. The OTP would first need to appeal Uhuru's excusal before Ruto's ruling can be used to apply to his case as well. Keep in mind today's Ruto ruling is based on an appeal lodged by the OTP back in June. I bet you my pet goat to your pet beagle that Bensouda will not appeal against the Uhuru excusal... Bensouda has three options: (a) request leave to appeal the Uhuru excusal, which leave would no doubt the granted and with the same result as in the present case; (b) ask the Trial Chamber to reconsider its excusal-decision; (c) do nothing, as you suggest/predict. The last is out of the question. One of the first two will definitely happen, and I expect it to happen by next week. Bensouda has to make such an application, if only because she is obliged to treat all "equally". Besides, the fact that one is His Excellency while the other is a mere His Deputy Excellency means bugger-all to her; a criminal is a criminal. The OTP may have applied in June but that was in the absence of clear guidelines on the matter. The Appeals Chamber has now established the guidelines, and they can be put into force very quickly. Please have your pet goat ready for collection by the end of next week. (I like goat-meat, especially when done West-Indian style.) Asante sana. Jeez let me lock in your response as a moment ago I read Bensouda had two options, now I suddenly see she has three options open to her. Otishotish, aren't those three options just a roundabout way of admitting that nothing in today's ruling "put paid" to the previous concessions from the ICC to Uhuru RE excusal?  PS: Curry goat was a personal favorite when I was in the East Coast of the land of the free... But as you admit you have lived extensively in China maybe shrimp fried Beagle will be the way to go... |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Oct 25, 2013 19:37:01 GMT 3
Jeez let me lock in your response as a moment ago I read Bensouda had two options, now I suddenly see she has three options open to her. Otishotish, aren't those three options just a roundabout way of admitting that nothing in today's ruling "put paid" to the previous concessions from the ICC to Uhuru RE excusal? Ah, you are a quick one. I was in the middle of editing, so that I could add the third option (yours) and make it clear that I was dismissing it out of hand. Having dismissed your "preferred" option, that leaves only (a) and (b), both of which will have exactly the same result. So, you may lock in my response as this: * Today's ruling has, in the vernacular, finished the Uhuru Excusal. Or, as the "educated" manamba would put it: "Ded. D-E.-D." I will now take some time off to "google" goat-meat recipes. |
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Oct 25, 2013 19:45:19 GMT 3
Jeez let me lock in your response as a moment ago I read Bensouda had two options, now I suddenly see she has three options open to her. Otishotish, aren't those three options just a roundabout way of admitting that nothing in today's ruling "put paid" to the previous concessions from the ICC to Uhuru RE excusal? Ah, you are a quick one. I was in the middle of editing, so that I could add the third option (yours) and make it clear that I was dismissing it out of hand. Having dismissed your "preferred" option, that leaves only (a) and (b), both of which will have exactly the same result. So, you may lock in my response as this: * Today's ruling has, in the vernacular, finished the Uhuru Excusal. Or, as the "educated" manamba would put it: "Ded. D-E.-D." I will now take some time off to "google" goat-meat recipes. Option (c) or three isn't my option but the actual situation at the court ergo it's Bensouda's current state. Only time will tell if she will feel lucky enough emboldened by today's ruling to pursue your options (a) or (b). Something tells me she may opt just to let sleeping dogs lie & proceed with (c) lest she finds she has taken on more than chew... |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Oct 25, 2013 19:55:34 GMT 3
Option (c) or three isn't my option but the actual situation at the court ergo it's Bensouda's current state. Only time will tell if she will feel lucky enough emboldened by today's ruling to pursue your options (a) or (b). Something tells me she may opt just to let sleeping dogs lie & proceed with (c) lest she finds she has taken on more than chew... D-E-D. DED. P.S. I have travelled quite a bit in China (where " everything is edible") but never lived there; I lived in Singapore, South Korea, and Japan. Dog-meat is a "delicacy" in South Korea, but I do not believe in eating man's best friend. Besides dog-restaurants in Korea are horribly expensive, and it is an honour to be invited to one. I once had such an "honour" but fortunately managed to fall "sick" just around dinner-time. I have noted the reference to beagles. (And it seems you have now decided to go after all dogs and houndly things.) One more time: go after just the man; it is low-down-and-dirty meanness to drag his dog into it. |
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Oct 25, 2013 20:19:34 GMT 3
Option (c) or three isn't my option but the actual situation at the court ergo it's Bensouda's current state. Only time will tell if she will feel lucky enough emboldened by today's ruling to pursue your options (a) or (b). Something tells me she may opt just to let sleeping dogs lie & proceed with (c) lest she finds she has taken on more than chew... D-E-D. DED. P.S. I have travelled quite a bit in China (where " everything is edible") but never lived there; I lived in Singapore, South Korea, and Japan. Dog-meat is a "delicacy" in South Korea, but I do not believe in eating man's best friend. Besides dog-restaurants in Korea are horribly expensive, and it is an honour to be invited to one. I once had such an "honour" but fortunately managed to fall "sick" just around dinner-time. I have noted the reference to beagles. (And it seems you have now decided to go after all dogs and houndly things.) One more time: go after just the man; it is low-down-and-dirty meanness to drag his dog into it.Touchy touchy. Enough with the dogs. Let's go back to ICC business.  Ruto & Sang exchange coded messages with their secret hats yesterday outside the ICC facility... The ICC seems to have a knack for opening itself up to criticism. On the very day Ruto's excusal request was denied, he has been granted a three day waiver from attending the trial (Monday-Wednesday) in order to attend a regional tripartite summit in Rwanda.Mind you UG & Rwanda will be represented by their heads of state, not deputy presidents. As Menya of Daily Nation reports, this is a "Historic Excusal" since it's the first time an accused will not be present in court as required by Article 63 (1). This reminds me of my old phrase that Kenyans seem to be running rings around this international court. Otishotish, what's your take on this latest development? www.nation.co.ke/news/politics/ICC-grants-Ruto-leave-from-trial-next-week/-/1064/2047176/-/jv18ot/-/index.html |
|
