|
Post by Onyango Oloo on Nov 8, 2013 6:06:50 GMT 3
''Justice' favors the powerful' Discuss. True statement up to a point. The victims and survivors of the PEV are still waiting. Yet.In the year 1986 a political prisoner called David Onyango Oloo sued the Kenya government for wrongful imprisonment after the Commissioner of Prisons deprived him and other political prisoners remission forcing him to serve time at Kamiti Maximum beyond the stipulated 3 years and 4 months. On the 7th of May 1987 the Kenya Court of Appeal ordered the immediate release of Oloo and directed the Kenya Government to pay him 100,000 shillings in damages. Senator Kiraitu Murungi, who was Oloo's lawyer at the time, pocketed the award. Oloo was released on May 11, 1987. As a result of his case, hundeds of other Kenyan political prisoners- especially members of the disbanded Air Force-walked out of jail soon after with the restoration of their remission meaning that they had already served the sentences. Another case in point. Charles Taylor is sitting in jail for the rest of his natural life. Remember he is the presidential candidate who quipped to his terrified and horrified fellow Liberians: "I killed your Ma, I killed your Pa; Now you will vote for ME."Power is relative. We can talk about the North and the South in terms of global dynamics. But remember, there is a NORTH in the South and a South in the North. When I was in Canada, I was for sure living in the South in terms of class, marginalization and oppression. Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto of Kenya, are in the NORTH in terms of privilege and power. When it comes to justice in Kenya, my brother in law who we nicknamed "Soldier" was shot in cold blood by Constable Kirui in a chilling event recorded for posterity by KTN cameras. At Kirui's trial, the cop walked free and we all know why-not because Kirui was rich and powerful, but because he was a state agent ordered to commit an act of terrorism against a defenceless citizen. Why did the perpetrators of the PEV crow, "Don't be Vague, Let's Go to the Hague"? It is because they KNEW that they were too powerful to be tried in Kenya and were DELUDED into thinking that it would take zillions of years for the Hague trials to get underway. Onyango Oloo
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Nov 8, 2013 8:33:34 GMT 3
''Justice' favors the powerful' Discuss. Abdulmote, you echo my thoughts in another thread!
|
|
|
Post by mank on Nov 8, 2013 9:11:58 GMT 3
I would not call it an imperialist court. I would call it a "naive court lacking the faculties to deliver its good wishes."
I recall a certain young lady early in my graduate school talking of how she planned to go and "help Africans" once she got her masters. The poor woman had never been outside her state ... very likely she had no serious experience beyond her county line (and a county in the US folks is an eye sore ... perhaps your sublocation of the eighties). But there she was, ready to go help Africans!
The myth around the world is that Africa is awash with problems that only foreigners can help solve. Clueless folks with white pigment always imagine that in their colour they have what it takes to make a difference in Africa's problems ... just appear there, white and strange, and problems start washing away.
I have been in company of one of them, and upon seeing a young boy minding his business, she checked with me "do you think I should give him a piece of bread?"
So is ICC an imperialist court?
I don't think so. Other than what I called it already it is a prejudiced institution that in whole is misplaced and needing saving. Surely, how can a court claim to rule on facts when every statement by a witness is delivered with distorted meaning?
Africa has her problems alright .... but ICC is no panacea - not in its current constitution.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Nov 8, 2013 9:53:46 GMT 3
Perhaps a better description of it would be something like your typical NGO full of activists who can only see human rights abuses by Africans. The courts behaviors fits into the description of the young lady described by Mank who thought that all she could do was help Africa.
|
|
|
Post by podp on Nov 8, 2013 13:29:11 GMT 3
I would not call it an imperialist court. I would call it a "naive court lacking the faculties to deliver its good wishes." I recall a certain young lady early in my graduate school talking of how she planned to go and "help Africans" once she got her masters. The poor woman had never been outside her state ... very likely she had no serious experience beyond her county line (and a county in the US folks is an eye sore ... perhaps your sublocation of the eighties). But there she was, ready to go help Africans! The myth around the world is that Africa is awash with problems that only foreigners can help solve. Clueless folks with white pigment always imagine that in their colour they have what it takes to make a difference in Africa's problems ... just appear there, white and strange, and problems start washing away.
I have been in company of one of them, and upon seeing a young boy minding his business, she checked with me "do you think I should give him a piece of bread?" So is ICC an imperialist court? I don't think so. Other than what I called it already it is a prejudiced institution that in whole is misplaced and needing saving. Surely, how can a court claim to rule on facts when every statement by a witness is delivered with distorted meaning? Africa has her problems alright .... but ICC is no panacea - not in its current constitution.1st red highlight what would you say to what is contained in OO's initiating essay to this thread, the excerpt of interest copy pasted below? In August 2007, Brzezinski declared that Obama “recognises that the challenge is a new face, a new sense of direction, a new definition of America’s role in the world”. Brzezinski was among major figures in the US foreign policy establishment who saw in Obama a means of giving the USA a “new face” to the rest of the world, something they deemed critical after the blunders and setbacks to American imperialism under Bush. Obama lived up to expectations in Ghana. He played on his African ancestry, just as he had emphasised his Muslim heritage the previous month in Cairo. The image of the two Obama children walking out into the sunlight from the “door of no return” at Cape Coast Castle, from which so many Africans did not return, was a skilfully exploited photo opportunity. Leaving this scene of so much human suffering, Obama said: “It reminds us that as bad as history can be, it’s always possible to overcome.” This was meant to imply that no matter what Africa has suffered in the past, and no matter what the continent continues to suffer at the hands of the banks, corporations and Western governments, the responsibility and the fault rests with the African people themselves. Obama brought an uncompromising message, spelling out in a more open way than George Bush dared to do during his visit to Ghana in 2008, that aid would be made available only in return for the implementation of policies that serve the interests of the US government and corporations and that there would be less of it in future. “Development,” Obama told parliamentarians, “depends upon good governance. That is the ingredient which has been missing in far too many places, for far too long. That is the change that can unlock Africa’s potential. And that is a responsibility that can only be met by Africans.” But the lecture also carried a threat: “We have a responsibility to support those who act responsibly and to isolate those who don’t, and that is exactly what America will do,” Obama declared. It was a message no pink-faced Western leader could have delivered without arousing resentment in Africa. The provision of aid has always been a political mechanism to force former colonial countries to pursue policies that serve the interests of the imperialist donors. But whereas Bush was obliged to make some token gestures, such as setting up the Millennium Challenge Account and increasing funding for Aids and malaria, Obama used the kudos he derived from his ancestry to point-blank insist that African governments toe the US line. Obama’s insistence that Ghana and other African governments achieve “good governance” is a demand for more of the free-market measures that are already being imposed with disastrous results for the social conditions of the population. “Good governance” means privatising essential services such as telecommunications, water and power, as well as social services like health and education. It also means removing subsidies from small farmers and abolishing import controls. Ghana has gone a long way down that route, which is why it has been favoured with visits from two successive US presidents. It is far from being one of Africa’s poorest countries, but 70% of the population in its northern regions live on less than a dollar a day. Life expectancy is only 58 years. Women often have to walk more than 3km to find water, and it is seldom clean. This situation is set to worsen dramatically. The global recession has hit Africa hard. Ghana was among those countries granted debt relief in 2005, but with the value of its currency falling, it is rapidly sliding into debt once more. The government’s response has been to impose an austerity budget in an attempt to balance the books. demokrasia-kenya.blogspot.com/2013/10/is-international-court-and-imperialist.htmlICC in the above context would fit into the act of changing gears as one cruises along with the goal still intact i.e. what Retired Rev. Njoya calls imperialism punishing its own wayward children. the children being PORK and deputy PORK. and like previous ICC prosecutor remarked, 'make Kenya an example' and the demeanor of both indictees is playing out perfectly. they are both reacting to what is happening now, albeit one playing good cop and the other bad cop. 2nd red high light I partially agree with you. what I do not comprehend is why the lethargy in us not acting and being pro-active? take as an example the straight forward horrible event that has just happened... “We are informed that arsonists who are believed to be cattle rustlers from the neighborhood were on revenge mission following Aduma's hard stand on the vice and attacked his homestead, hacked his mother to death and torched the house burning his father beyond recognition,” said CORD. “It will be recalled that three months ago Mr. Aduma protested at the escalating cases of insecurity in his constituency but was instead charged in court for incitement.” “The government must take pleas by elected leaders seriously and stop treating them as mere gimmicks to gain political mileage.” www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000097187&story_title=cord-condemns-nyakach-murderwww.nation.co.ke/news/Nyakach-MP-parents-killed-in-arson-attack/-/1056/2065006/-/fi2xn9z/-/index.htmlit is 'simple' situations like the above that make ICC relevant to dealing with our PORK and deputy PORK type of indictees as the same accusation we level against ICC (biases towards Africans) plays out on us among ourselves much too frequent!
|
|
|
Post by podp on Nov 8, 2013 13:46:40 GMT 3
what I do agree with wholeheartedly is 'The whole thing about the ICC being "an imperialist court" is a chimera; a bogey man; a red herring.' it is obvious by calling ICC and imperialist court, the indictees are referring to something that misleads or detracts from the actual or otherwise important issue, the latter the being their roles in 2007/09 and to date to their collusion to erase as many witnesses as practicable possible and continue with impunity. in addition to the hoard of Westerners they are employing they are also reaching out to locals to do their local binding in the villages, towns and forums such as this one. they have unleashed the whole arsenal and will not stop until re-instating impunity to the 80s levels. Prof. How so? You can’t assert that the call by some of us that the ICC is a tool used by the imperialist is merely a red herring, without justifying your assertion. I can only talk of myself. I call the ICC an imperialist endeavour because I believe it is simply a mechanism by which interventions are made to neutralise those who don’t toe the imperialistic line. That is why, for instances, the West pay considerably for the ICC , when ICC directly does not impact on them or their citizenry. Now, what is you explanation for the charge of 'red herring'? 1st red high light. listening to Retired Rev Njoya I agree with you. in days gone by and to mind comes Saddam Hussein of Iraq and much earlier the self styled Central Africa emperor Bokassa, we all know what became of those sorrowful tin gods. with changing of gears we now have the ICC to deal with the likes of our PORK and deputy PORK so that they can be good 'children' and stop wayward ways as defined by their masters. it is cruel if one is aspiring to be like them in future but it is humbling when despite their sticking out the middle finger to us their mortal citizens, they too can be beaten to behave do you have a better way to deal with wayward children as our PORK and deputy PORK may be if the events that occurred in 2007/08 required some sacrificial lambs? do you see CJ Mutunga and any of our supreme court judges ever summoning PORK and deputy PORK on any charges, imagined and/or real?
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Nov 9, 2013 22:59:59 GMT 3
Prof. How so? You can’t assert that the call by some of us that the ICC is a tool used by the imperialist is merely a red herring, without justifying your assertion. I can only talk of myself. I call the ICC an imperialist endeavour because I believe it is simply a mechanism by which interventions are made to neutralise those who don’t toe the imperialistic line. That is why, for instances, the West pay considerably for the ICC , when ICC directly does not impact on them or their citizenry. Now, what is you explanation for the charge of 'red herring'? 1st red high light. listening to Retired Rev Njoya I agree with you. in days gone by and to mind comes Saddam Hussein of Iraq and much earlier the self styled Central Africa emperor Bokassa, we all know what became of those sorrowful tin gods. with changing of gears we now have the ICC to deal with the likes of our PORK and deputy PORK so that they can be good 'children' and stop wayward ways as defined by their masters. it is cruel if one is aspiring to be like them in future but it is humbling when despite their sticking out the middle finger to us their mortal citizens, they too can be beaten to behave do you have a better way to deal with wayward children as our PORK and deputy PORK may be if the events that occurred in 2007/08 required some sacrificial lambs? do you see CJ Mutunga and any of our supreme court judges ever summoning PORK and deputy PORK on any charges, imagined and/or real? Prof Your argument assumes the only option available in the kenyans cases is the ICC. I don’t. Two points to illustrate my point. a. When a Pan Am passenger airplane was brought down in Lockerbie, Scotland by a bomb, killing approximately three hundred people, the perpetrator was tracked down and eventuality brought to justice. But, it was not international ‘justice’ which he, the perpetrator, faced, despite killing people of different nationalities. He was tried before Scottish judges using Scots Law. The trial was conducted in the Netherlands to gain some neutrality. When he was convicted, he spent time in Scottish jail. So, why would the Kenyans cases be any different? The reason why the Kenyans are before judges in a foreign land is the erroneous perception that justices can only be delivered in a Whiteman’s land. And of course the distorted believe that if the Kenyans are convicted and jailed, a certain person will ascend the presidency. Your argument that the ICC is the only alternative therefore fails. b. Onyango Oloo wrote above that when he was detained illegally, he went to the High Court and won his freedom and damages. Shame the money was lost to his lawyers, but the fact is he won during a period in our history when we were under repressive regime of Moi. If your argument are right, to achieve what he did he would have needed to go to a Whiteman’s Court to seek restitution.
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Nov 9, 2013 23:49:10 GMT 3
''Justice' favors the powerful' Discuss. True statement up to a point. The victims and survivors of the PEV are still waiting. Yet.In the year 1986 a political prisoner called David Onyango Oloo sued the Kenya government for wrongful imprisonment after the Commissioner of Prisons deprived him and other political prisoners remission forcing him to serve time at Kamiti Maximum beyond the stipulated 3 years and 4 months. On the 7th of May 1987 the Kenya Court of Appeal ordered the immediate release of Oloo and directed the Kenya Government to pay him 100,000 shillings in damages. Senator Kiraitu Murungi, who was Oloo's lawyer at the time, pocketed the award. Oloo was released on May 11, 1987. As a result of his case, hundeds of other Kenyan political prisoners- especially members of the disbanded Air Force-walked out of jail soon after with the restoration of their remission meaning that they had already served the sentences. Another case in point. Charles Taylor is sitting in jail for the rest of his natural life. Remember he is the presidential candidate who quipped to his terrified and horrified fellow Liberians: "I killed your Ma, I killed your Pa; Now you will vote for ME."Power is relative. We can talk about the North and the South in terms of global dynamics. But remember, there is a NORTH in the South and a South in the North. When I was in Canada, I was for sure living in the South in terms of class, marginalization and oppression. Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto of Kenya, are in the NORTH in terms of privilege and power. When it comes to justice in Kenya, my brother in law who we nicknamed "Soldier" was shot in cold blood by Constable Kirui in a chilling event recorded for posterity by KTN cameras. At Kirui's trial, the cop walked free and we all know why-not because Kirui was rich and powerful, but because he was a state agent ordered to commit an act of terrorism against a defenceless citizen. Why did the perpetrators of the PEV crow, "Don't be Vague, Let's Go to the Hague"? It is because they KNEW that they were too powerful to be tried in Kenya and were DELUDED into thinking that it would take zillions of years for the Hague trials to get underway. Onyango OlooOloo I wanted to return to your claim that the ICC is not an imperialist Court. Tom Paine in his book, The Rights of Man writes about “free government” for the new colonies of the State, freedom from Britain. The “free government” entailed freedom for its citizenry and freedom from the “control and influence” of other states (here Britain). It is this freedom the liberals has peddled and promoted ever since Americans rebelled against the English in 1776. I believe it was that “freedom” as a citizen, which allowed you to challenge your detention. You remember during that period Kenya was under the most repressive regime of Moi. Yet, you won, not only your liberty but also compensation (restitution). Unfortunately, you lost that monetary success to your then lawyer. If our Courts were good enough for the then detained Onyango Oloo to seek ‘justice’ and win, during a period of dictatorial reprisals, why would it not be so for the three currently before ICC? When you went to the High Court, I believe you had in your mind the concept of “the rule of law” as you ought to have known that “rule of law” merely draws a distinction between notion of law-in-command, and the absence of laws’ authority. You were detained because someone in power (law-in-command) wanted that but you were released because the High Court (laws’ authority) exercised its power to disagree with the powerful person who detained you.
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Nov 9, 2013 23:54:41 GMT 3
I make no apologies in quoting Mark Duffield. His books are main reference to 'Human Security'. If you looked keenly, you would have seen that he features predominately in my endnotes, especially his book, 'Development, Security and Unending war'. This guy who is based at Bristol is an authority in that subject. Near you, ( I know you are based at SOAS - can even give you your IP address), Mary Klador of LSE is another formidable source. As expected, you have again shined with you stupidity. I thought Tilapia makes your 'clever'. Didn't I just advise you to stay away from matusi? (Here on Jukwaa, we strive for positive, helpful, and friendly attitudes.) There is no need to apologize for quoting Duffield or anyone else. (And, yes, I did look at the badly written "endnotes".) The main problem is that you have done a cut-and-paste from numerous sources without making any proper attribution, thus making it appear, as you indeed intended to make it appear, that it is all your thoughts and writing. Here is a hint on how you might have usefully applied your endnotes: where you have done a cut-and-paste, append a number ("1", "2", "3", etc.), and then in your "endnotes" link the number to the source. Of course, that would defeat your attempt to pull a fast one ... Another problem is that almost the entire thing is of a product of your scissors and glue. That makes it inappropriate (and cheeky) for you to refer to "my writing". A third problem is that there appears to be no logical plan in the gluing-together of the pieces. That makes it problematic for the reader who might have an interest in whatever point you wish to make. (See my earlier remark on a "smooth flow".) Here's an idea: why not try, again, to make whatever point it is, but this time put down the scissors and glue. Here's an example where there is no doubt that Sadik is doing his own writing: "His books are main reference to 'Human Security'. If you looked keenly, you would have seen that he features predominately in my endnotes, especially his book, 'Development, Security and Unending war'."
SOAS, eh? I have heard about the place. Mary Klador. Hmm. By the way late last night, while engaged in the task of locating some of your sources, I exchanged email with one of your "co-authors", who was helpful. He/she was amused but gave you marks for "creativity". His/her opinion on the Samuel-Johnson bit matched Waweru's. (I deliberately left out certain contextual bits, in order to avoid offending anyone, but, lest I be misunderstood, I apologize to the women on Jukwaa for any unintentional slight.) Anyways ... he/she was also of the opinion that you should never consider going into academia---that some Disciplinary Committee would have you for quick lunch, on the matter of plagiarism. P.S. It's hard to get tilapia where I live. That explains what Omwenga referred to as my lack of "brains and what it takes". Still, one works with whatever one has, and I do try my best. Surely, even you would admit that I do. OtienoI thought you were in a mission of unearthing me. I have not seen anything other than hot air from your Kamongo stinking self. Boy, you are full of nonsense. Remember Raila lost the election.
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Nov 10, 2013 0:01:47 GMT 3
I will not add to what Otish Otish has pointed out in regards the sources/content of your rejoinder. OlooI have read your reply carefully. I find the line quoted above seriously offensive and injurious to me. If you can justified what you have written, please do so. Otherwise, I will kindly request you withdraw it.
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Nov 10, 2013 1:26:25 GMT 3
I have not seen anything other than hot air from your Kamongo stinking self. Boy, you are full of nonsense. That is not how to win friends or influence people.
|
|
|
Post by Omwenga on Nov 10, 2013 3:53:19 GMT 3
OO,I have finally had time to read your piece and am generally in agreement with you the ICC is not imperialist but allow for exceptions where the opposite is the case. You did make on observation that I think I can use to illustrate my deviation but leave it open for you to say whether you're in agreement or not as to this particular reasoning: You said, "Those who posit that the ICC is “an imperialist court”, are literally inferring that the International Criminal Court is either an entity created by those who hold the levers of global monopoly capital or it serves these international capitalists in one way or another. The flip side of this anti-ICC argument means therefore that the ICC by its very nature is AGAINST the interests of all those dominated, controlled and oppressed by global monopoly capitalism meaning all those countries suffering from colonialism, neo-colonialism and other forms of imperialist oppression. From this it flows that all progressive, anti-imperialist, revolutionary Africans have a DUTY to oppose this imperialist edifice known as the ICC."I realize you're summing up the two sides of the argument but in so doing, either you or those presenting the the argument as such have left out a third argument in the middle and the reason the question you pose does not render itself to an answer that is be black or white and this is simply the fact that even though a compelling case can be made the ICC serves in one way or another the interests of those who have a monopoly and control the levers of global capital, it does not follow that the ICC is therefore by nature against the interests of those dominated because it's entirely possible and many cases can be cited to demonstrate the fact that the ICC has and does serve both the interests of the dominating forces and the dominated. That's not to say there aren't instances where the ICC does not or would not act in a manner that does not serve the interests of the dominated; it does and would do so to the far future. Given this third dimension, it would therefore seem to me the question whether ICC is an imperialist court is one can and should be answered, yes and no, depending on what time of the day it is and what the issue is in particular, not in a generalized sense. As to the Kenyan cases, I would argue the answer is in the balance and will be more clear depending on the outcome of the process. More on this in my upcoming column on a related question and subject matter. Excerpt: The problem I see with the ICC is no different than one you find in all politically charged cases, whether internationally or locally and that's when you have the very powerful implicated in wrongdoing, especially in criminal wrongdoing, the prosecutor better think twice or even 10 times before going full-throttle against the suspected powerful and only when they can say they have a water-tight case because anything less will be subject to surgical destruction by a good defense team almost always leading to acquittal of the charged. In the context of Kenyan cases, here is what people must accept as fact or at least always keep in mind: When Uhuru and Ruto were charged before the ICC, neither individual was "very powerful" in this sense; influential politicians, yes, but very powerful, not all. In fact, Uhuru was merely a minister and Ruto was no longer serving as minister having been suspended for corruption investigation. The ICC assumed jurisdiction in the cases, however, because it was apparent that Kenya was unable or unwilling to prosecute the named individuals not because they were powerful but because they were influential enough in the corridors of power, both executive and legislative. Now, fast forward to 2013...
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Nov 10, 2013 6:44:16 GMT 3
The ICC assumed jurisdiction in the cases, however, because it was apparent that Kenya was unable or unwilling to prosecute the named individuals not because they were powerful but because they were influential enough in the corridors of power, both executive and legislative. Now, fast forward to 2013... Interesting point. And, yes, 2013. Precisely. And now that there is no doubt about both their power and influence, it is time to "bring the cases home". Kenya is now able and willing to prosecute them.
|
|
|
Post by podp on Nov 10, 2013 7:42:54 GMT 3
Prof Your argument assumes the only option available in the kenyans cases is the ICC. I don’t. Two points to illustrate my point. a. When a Pan Am passenger airplane was brought down in Lockerbie, Scotland by a bomb, killing approximately three hundred people, the perpetrator was tracked down and eventuality brought to justice. But, it was not international ‘justice’ which he, the perpetrator, faced, despite killing people of different nationalities. He was tried before Scottish judges using Scots Law. The trial was conducted in the Netherlands to gain some neutrality. When he was convicted, he spent time in Scottish jail. So, why would the Kenyans cases be any different? The reason why the Kenyans are before judges in a foreign land is the erroneous perception that justices can only be delivered in a Whiteman’s land. And of course the distorted believe that if the Kenyans are convicted and jailed, a certain person will ascend the presidency. Your argument that the ICC is the only alternative therefore fails. b. Onyango Oloo wrote above that when he was detained illegally, he went to the High Court and won his freedom and damages. Shame the money was lost to his lawyers, but the fact is he won during a period in our history when we were under repressive regime of Moi. If your argument are right, to achieve what he did he would have needed to go to a Whiteman’s Court to seek restitution. 1st red high light I fully agree with you. South Africa, Rwanda and Sierra Leone did not have to witness the macabre act of their citizens being tried abroad. www.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v8/v8i1a1.htmPardon rather than punishment, or pardon for the many alongside punishment of the few, has become a trend for transitional societies coming out of eras marked by intrastate conflict. Restorative justice, which favors reconciliation among former foes over punishment of perpetrators of crimes, has been increasingly applied since 1974, with truth commissions implemented in approximately two dozen countries around the world. Most prominent among these in Africa has been South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, but Rwanda, Sierra Leone, the Central African Republic, Ghana, Morocco and Nigeria have also embarked on “truth telling” processes that emphasize reconciliation. 2nd red high light Kenyan cases are different because of lack of will power. PORK, deputy PORK, CJ Mutunga and any judge, Director of Public Prosecution and IG Kimaiyo have not ordered the arrest and prosecution of any arsonist (and it is difficult to comprehend that all those properties burnt in 2007/08 not a single person was responsible: did the houses spontaneously catch fire?), no rapist has been arrested and prosecuted (are those women both minors and adults some who gave birth to children from the rape ordeals have virgin births like Mary mother of Jesus?) and no killer has been arrested or prosecuted (did those 1,300 or so people officially dead from 2007/08 do an Ouko Act of using machetes on themselves, shooting themselves and burning themselves?). Show me a country with Kenya's experiences and you will have a country whose PORK alike or former PORK alike had to reckon with ICC. Remember Yugoslavia, recently Liberia...
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Nov 10, 2013 11:05:20 GMT 3
2nd red high light Kenyan cases are different because of lack of will power. PORK, deputy PORK, CJ Mutunga and any judge, Director of Public Prosecution and IG Kimaiyo have not ordered the arrest and prosecution of any arsonist (and it is difficult to comprehend that all those properties burnt in 2007/08 not a single person was responsible: did the houses spontaneously catch fire?), no rapist has been arrested and prosecuted (are those women both minors and adults some who gave birth to children from the rape ordeals have virgin births like Mary mother of Jesus?) and no killer has been arrested or prosecuted (did those 1,300 or so people officially dead from 2007/08 do an Ouko Act of using machetes on themselves, shooting themselves and burning themselves?). Show me a country with Kenya's experiences and you will have a country whose PORK alike or former PORK alike had to reckon with ICC. Remember Yugoslavia, recently Liberia... Prof We agree on the first point. On the second point, we agree to an extend. I agree no meaning prosecution has taken place. Gov't of Kenya has done absolutely nothing to bring anyone to trial for the PEV. Despite that failure by the gov't, why are you blaming the judiciary? Trials are held when an aggrieved party complains to the Court. Courts are not expected to initiate prosecution themselves, their role is to conduct a fair trial. People speak of "victims", and yes the terrible things which were done in the PEV must be brought to the attention of the public. But, what concerns me is the many organisations mushrooming left and right in the name of victim support, yet to date none of them has deemed fit to bring prosecution on behalf of the victims. As there are no cases brought by the victims in our courts, it is difficult to take those victims crusaders serious. I'm left to conclude the victims are merely being used for other reasons not seeking justice. Even if it is the case that the PORK cannot be sued directly, his gov't can for misfeasance in not prosecution culprits of the PEV. On Liberia, I would introduce Justice Waki who chaired the 2008 Commission on the PEV which resulted in an envelope with names handed to Anan ( by then a private person) who then passed it to Ocampo, and who subsequently started on his volitions an investigation on the PEV leading to several high profile Kenyans before the ICC. justice Waki failed to be appointed to the Supreme Court of Kenya despite his cousin Mutula Kilonzo sitting as a Minister of Justice in Kibaki's government. Mutula later died in mysterious circumstances, his postmortem report yet to be made public. Ringera earlier threw Justice Waki out of the Court of Appeal during the radical ‘surgery’ on the Judiciary. Justice Waki now sits as an Appeal Justice on the Special Court for Sierra Leone, not part of the ICC ( or its other adhoc bodies). He was appointed to that Special Court in 2012 by UNIPSIL - United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Sierra Leone. UNIPSIL is a body appointed by the security council of the UN -where the five permanent members have 'veto' powers. The Special Court is therefore under the mandate of the Security Council - especially the USA who fund them. Justice Waki did sit on the Charles Taylor's appeal judgment as an alternate judge. Maybe the funders, the Americans, did find him fit enough to sit on that appeal. The Liberia case is of interest. How does one treat Charles Taylor with disdain when it was only the other day he was hailed a hero, a savior of Liberia from Samuel Doe and supported by the USA? And how one square that information now available which says he was at all time actually a CIA agent. Liberia is the only country in Africa founded by United States colonization. The colonists, Black Americans, and their descendants led the political, social, cultural and economic sectors of the country and ruled the nation until Samuel Doe ( a native) in 1980 took power through a coup. A civil war erupted killing millions, until a descendant of the colonist took over as a president with open USA support. Taylor faced music not for Liberia but the looting of gold in Sierra Leone, a mine country owned by the mighty Capitalists, USA. As for the 'only' President to be brought before a Court, that title was taken by Karl Dönitz, who served as President of Germany for a spell after Hitler committed suicide and was convicted of crimes against the peace and humanity. Of course, Slobodan Milošević, killed himself before the conclusion of trial, he died pre-verdict. I would not say Karl Dönitz received any "justice' at all as he faced 'excution' by the victors after the Second War World. Imperial to the tilth!
|
|
|
Post by abdulmote on Nov 10, 2013 17:49:20 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by podp on Nov 10, 2013 18:19:34 GMT 3
Prof We agree on the first point. On the second point, we agree to an extend. I agree no meaning prosecution has taken place. Gov't of Kenya has done absolutely nothing to bring anyone to trial for the PEV. Despite that failure by the gov't, why are you blaming the judiciary? Trials are held when an aggrieved party complains to the Court. Courts are not expected to initiate prosecution themselves, their role is to conduct a fair trial. People speak of "victims", and yes the terrible things which were done in the PEV must be brought to the attention of the public. But, what concerns me is the many organisations mushrooming left and right in the name of victim support, yet to date none of them has deemed fit to bring prosecution on behalf of the victims. As there are no cases brought by the victims in our courts, it is difficult to take those victims crusaders serious. I'm left to conclude the victims are merely being used for other reasons not seeking justice. Even if it is the case that the PORK cannot be sued directly, his gov't can for misfeasance in not prosecution culprits of the PEV. On Liberia, I would introduce Justice Waki who chaired the 2008 Commission on the PEV which resulted in an envelope with names handed to Anan ( by then a private person) who then passed it to Ocampo, and who subsequently started on his volitions an investigation on the PEV leading to several high profile Kenyans before the ICC. justice Waki failed to be appointed to the Supreme Court of Kenya despite his cousin Mutula Kilonzo sitting as a Minister of Justice in Kibaki's government. Mutula later died in mysterious circumstances, his postmortem report yet to be made public. Ringera earlier threw Justice Waki out of the Court of Appeal during the radical ‘surgery’ on the Judiciary. Justice Waki now sits as an Appeal Justice on the Special Court for Sierra Leone, not part of the ICC ( or its other adhoc bodies). He was appointed to that Special Court in 2012 by UNIPSIL - United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Sierra Leone. UNIPSIL is a body appointed by the security council of the UN -where the five permanent members have 'veto' powers. The Special Court is therefore under the mandate of the Security Council - especially the USA who fund them. Justice Waki did sit on the Charles Taylor's appeal judgment as an alternate judge. Maybe the funders, the Americans, did find him fit enough to sit on that appeal. The Liberia case is of interest. How does one treat Charles Taylor with disdain when it was only the other day he was hailed a hero, a savior of Liberia from Samuel Doe and supported by the USA? And how one square that information now available which says he was at all time actually a CIA agent. Liberia is the only country in Africa founded by United States colonization. The colonists, Black Americans, and their descendants led the political, social, cultural and economic sectors of the country and ruled the nation until Samuel Doe ( a native) in 1980 took power through a coup. A civil war erupted killing millions, until a descendant of the colonist took over as a president with open USA support. Taylor faced music not for Liberia but the looting of gold in Sierra Leone, a mine country owned by the mighty Capitalists, USA. As for the 'only' President to be brought before a Court, that title was taken by Karl Dönitz, who served as President of Germany for a spell after Hitler committed suicide and was convicted of crimes against the peace and humanity. Of course, Slobodan Milošević, killed himself before the conclusion of trial, he died pre-verdict. I would not say Karl Dönitz received any "justice' at all as he faced 'excution' by the victors after the Second War World. Imperial to the tilth! thanks for shedding light on the Liberia, Sierra Leone and those who were on ICC radar before our PORK and deputy PORK. 1st red high light And it will be clear to the marginalised and voiceless that it is these NGOs that have the guts to speak out for them and that is it the Constitution that gives them a chance and hope. www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/-/440808/2065638/-/6ydu8vz/-/index.htmlDue to the disputed presidential election in Kenya in December 2007, many youth across Kenya witnessed or experienced sudden war-like violence within their community. In Nairobi, postelection violence was concentrated in some, but not all, of the informal settlements-home to the most impoverished Kenyans. The dispute divided the major ethnic tribal groups, who were neighbors within the settlements. The largest informal settlement in Nairobi experienced very high levels of violence because the main opponent was the Member of Parliament (MP) for the region of Nairobi that included this settlement. In addition, the incumbent President and this MP were from different ethnic tribal groups. There were widespread reports of violence within this settlement lasting for over a month including burning stores and homes, forced circumcision, rape, and murder results of the study in short All of the 552 youth lived in the impoverished informal settlement, 52% were female with a mean age of 11 years (range 6–18 years), and 12% reported no lifetime traumatic events, whereas 47% endorsed more than five traumatic events. In terms of the one event that “bothers [them] the most now,” children reported seeing a dead body (22%), followed by seeing someone beaten or shot (20%), being in a place where a war was going on (17%), general trauma during postelection violence (17%), and being in a fire or flood (8%). The remaining eight categories of traumatic events were endorsed by only 1% or 2% of the children including four children reporting sexual abuse. Adolescents’ reports of their most disturbing traumatic events were very similar and almost in the same order as those reported by children with two adolescents reporting sexual abuse as their worst trauma. and the conclusions These data are representative of Kenyan school-age youth in the largest informal settlement in Nairobi and provide much needed prevalence estimates on the mental health impact of the postelection violence. Many youth continued to suffer from PTSD symptoms 6 months after the postelection violence ended, and those who reported multiple traumatic events were more likely to have PTSD. Although the pattern of posttraumatic stress symptom presentation and parent–child disagreement seen in Kenya was similar to what has been reported from developed countries, our data showed no sex differences. Our lack of age differences suggested that developmental factors in the presentation of PTSD were not as evident within school-age youth. Overall, these results call for universal mental health care for traumatized, school-aged girls and boys within informal settlements in Nairobi, Kenya. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3476455/yes brother Sadik, 'People speak of "victims"' and we will continue speaking of victims both in general and specific terms. 2nd red high light using 'victims' is an old age action and I will not pretend not to agree with you other places may offer us ways forward. e.g. The evolution of victims' rights and services has generated a revolution in the American public's views of victims as citizens who deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. www.ncjrs.gov/ovc_archives/reports/impact/impact.htm
|
|