|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 1, 2014 23:51:45 GMT 3
Interestingly, the latter argument (finding a local solution) may soon lose luster as the cases collapse on other grounds. Interestingly? It never was interesting, and it still is not interesting. That has always been a bill of goods... to be sold to suckers ... peddled by small-time conmen ... for well-known reasons. Sadly, I doubt that anybody ever bought---not after so many do-nothing post-PEV years. But what can I say? Man gets paid and given clear instructions---so many shillings, for so many words, in this or that paper---and he has to deliver. Work with whatever he's got at hand ... Bugger facts and logical reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by mwalimumkuu on Feb 2, 2014 0:43:19 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by mwalimumkuu on Feb 2, 2014 1:02:47 GMT 3
Pardon me, Otishotish. I suppose I misunderstood the part where you were saying there was no evidence the case was doomed in August 2013, yet clearly there was enough evidence in May for Kaufman to say what he did then. Until your entry, my statements on this thread were specific and limited---to what Hero Omwenga had to say. In particular, his claim that Oga Chief-Oh's request to be taken off the case is because "there is no denying" that it's because the case is collapsing. Against that I pointed out that: (a) ICC judges in other cases have asked to be replaced and it has happened. Why should it be that in this case "there is no denying" that it must be because the case is collapsing? That is a clear question that Omwenga could answer, if he has an answer.(b) Any answer to the question in (a) should take into account (i) when Oga Chief-Oh made his requests and (ii) his various statements in favour of the cases going on. (Let's save Kaufman for later, as it will be a distraction; but the problem I had with his statement was as I have stated above: I saw no reason to believe that it was anything but guesswork. We can dissect his statement after we finish with The Local Hero.) My views (which should be somewhere in the archives) going back to 2012, were that "pariah state", "economic sanctions", etc. would not happen. In any case, there is an "out" for the True Believers, because "essential contacts" have always been OK. You only need to read Judge Hans Peter Kaul's dissenting opinions and more importantly, Judge Van Den Wyngaert's statements before she vacated Kenyatta's case to understand why others are becoming uncomfortable by the day with this particular case. ~~ Mwalimumkuu @nyumbakubwa ~~
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 2, 2014 1:13:04 GMT 3
No, it wasn't ... In the overall scheme of things, some of us thing Juwkaa could be just one molecule in one small drop of water in the ocean. (Don't get me wrong, Comrade OO; it is a great forum!) All I wanted to say was this: There are people who claim to know deep and heavy things, of which they will point out only the general direction of a tiny tip. (We don't even get to see the tip itself.) Now, if anyone knows such deep and heavy things, in the entire area between New York and Nairobi, then surely the Americans must be trailing him, as one would say in Kenya, and recording everything (as we have been told they have been doing, all over the place). The problem, then, is this: the Americans might not be able to immediately decipher everything, but once their scientists complete the "electronic nose", all they will find is a real stinky fart. Still, having the leading spooks of the leading superpower smell one's fart could be some sort of achievement ... I don't know. Perhaps that's inconceivable, the sort of issue where there's no denying. Why else would one keep farting all over the place---blogs, cyberforums, local papers, ...----and very loudly at that? I give up. Dealing with this small tip is too much of a struggle ... inside and outside.
I don't know why the OTP's submission of yesterday is still not "linked" at the ICC website, as it was mailed out yesterday. I'll post it here in a bit. Anyway ... that's the Daily Nonsense. For example:
"she was ready to open new prosecutions against other senior PNU officials and prominent Kikuyu politicians and businessmen that she alleges may be criminally liable for crimes committed after the 2007 General Election".
She did not state that. What she stated is that the OTP has some evidence against such people, and it is investigating them. She also implied that GoK could deal with them. Here is what she actually stated:
"The Prosecution already has in its possession evidence to show that other senior PNU operatives and prominent Kikuyu politicians and businessmen may be criminally liable for the crimes committed during the PEV. It would not be proper to go into details of that investigation at this stage. The Prosecution is currently assessing the strength of its evidence against these individuals.
This does not preclude the Kenyan Government from leading its own trials."
I don't see anything about being ready to open prosecutions against ...
Anyway ... vaguely related to the NSA some day smelling stinky farts from Jukwaa, there is this: Besounda was asked a direct question: "The Americans appear to have been recording all sorts of things all over the place. Have you asked them for what they have from the PEV period?" Her answer was one of those "we can neither confirm nor deny" sort of answers. See the "annex" that I will shortly attach.
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 2, 2014 1:32:33 GMT 3
You only need to read Judge Hans Peter Kaul's dissenting opinions and more importantly, Judge Van Den Wyngaert's statements before she vacated Kenyatta's case to understand why others are becoming uncomfortable by the day with this particular case. ~~ Mwalimumkuu @nyumbakubwa ~~
I have read them.
Are there grounds to believe that Kaul was "uncomfortable" with some aspects of the case? Yes. He put them right there, in black-and-white, on a public website. According to him, the crimes did not rise to the level of "crimes against humanity". I also note that he did not ask to be replaced. On the contrary, having first expressed his reservations at the "summons" state, he then explicitly stated that he would sit in the Confirmation hearings "as a matter of principle". What's more he continued with the case until the Trial Chamber was formed.
Are there ground to believe that Van Den Wyngaert was "uncomfortable" with some aspects of the case. Yes. She put them right there, in black-and-white, on a public website. She appears to have been unhappy with OTP's late disclosures, as well as delays in disclosing certain exculpatory material. But I saw nothing to suggest that she had problems with the quality of the evidence itself or to suggest that she felt a collapse was imminent.
But can you help me with Oga Chief-Oh? What should I read to indicate that he is "uncomfortable" to such an extent that he wants out of a "collapsing case"? Maybe we can start with something that indicates "discomfort" (of the type and level expressed in the other two circumstances) and then work to the point where a judge feels that problems with a prosecutor's case means that he must do a runner. Very unusual behavior for a judge? The links would help. Asante sana.
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 2, 2014 1:40:12 GMT 3
This "Annex" is the source of the DN story: 203824025-Annex-Prosecution-Opposition-to-t....pdf (135.67 KB) The DN could have written a better story from that, even if they stuck to what is actually stated. What's more, the submission itself provides a better story for the "pro-Prince" types. I will attach that shortly.
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 2, 2014 1:42:44 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by Omwenga on Feb 5, 2014 19:25:43 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by mank on Feb 6, 2014 8:03:06 GMT 3
From the horse's mouth: The victims' lawyer does a spectacular job here ... but Fatou's team is absent. It is all too clear now that the overwhelming bank of evidence her predecessor promised was just a fat lie. The defense lawyer appropriately looks back at the importance of the "evidence" of Witnesses #4 and #12 in building a fraudulent case. I cannot forget the impression I had when I listened to Witness #4 on a clip like these ones. In the end the ICC, in the interest of salvaging its reputation, might have to issue summonses to the OTP over processing of those 2 witnesses. As for the current case, there is none!
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Feb 6, 2014 8:38:10 GMT 3
Anyone else heard the comment by Kay that it is only after the arrival of Gumpert that the issue of lying witnesses addressed? The key word here was that "it started worrying Gumpert...."
If you asked me, the OTP is looking for a way out that leaves them with as little egg as possible!
|
|
|
Post by KOLONEL BRISK on Feb 9, 2014 0:51:07 GMT 3
It is now more than a month since Albert Muriuki – a deputy presidential adviser based at State House – was reported missing, investigations are yet to establish his whereabouts. Mr Albert Muriuki was also a former intern at ICC. Muriuki got the job in the Office of the President in October last year, two years after he arrived back in the country from the US, where he was pursuing a master’s degree on International Law. Before coming back home, he had worked as an intern at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, Netherlands. He graduated from the prestigious Columbia Law School in 2011, and after his arrival in Kenya, he worked at Ahmednasir, Abdikadir and Co Advocates before he secured the State House job. Food For Thought www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000104202&story_title=panic-as-president-s-adviser-goes-missing&pageNo=1Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on Feb 9, 2014 6:09:16 GMT 3
Otishotish,
My position is that Uhuru and Ruto should NOT have run for office in the first place: not as long as they are "suspects" for such heinous crimes against their fellow Kenyans.
If that had been the case, we would not be having this discussion - which is not helping those people who are still living as refugees in their own country.
Don't you agree?
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 9, 2014 18:53:29 GMT 3
Otishotish, My position is that Uhuru and Ruto should NOT have run for office in the first place: not as long as they are "suspects" for such heinous crimes against their fellow Kenyans. If that had been the case, we would not be having this discussion - which is not helping those people who are still living as refugees in their own country. Don't you agree? Wanyee: That one is for Kenyans; where I live such a question would never arise.
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on Feb 12, 2014 22:05:48 GMT 3
Otishotish,
Do "you" agree that Uhuru and Ruto should NOT have run for elections in the first place, particularly in view of the serious charges against them?
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Feb 13, 2014 8:51:02 GMT 3
Otishotish, Do "you" agree that Uhuru and Ruto should NOT have run for elections in the first place, particularly in view of the serious charges against them? Some questions are rather daft. I am certain this will be followed by a well researched conspiracy theory weaved from scraps from western media as is so typical of good old Wanyee! Why would you deny them their constitutional right to run for office? The Kenyan people ELECTED them to office which means that they believed that the two should have run!
|
|
|
Post by mwalimumkuu on Feb 13, 2014 19:28:25 GMT 3
In the meantime, 'Amicus' Prof. Githu Muigai has laid down the procedure as is in the Kenyan law for obtaining whatever information the court requires from the GoK. We can now clearly see where this is headed. Poor OTP!!
~~ Mwalimumkuu @nyumbakubwa ~~
|
|
|
Post by wanyee on Feb 13, 2014 20:09:56 GMT 3
Kamalet,
Yes, Uhuru and Ruto had a constitutional right to run for elections, but they had (have) the "moral responsibility" not to have done so, owing to the serious charges pending against them. (In the same way that we expect other civil servants to take leaves of absence when they are being investigated for official misconduct).
---
Otishotish, I am still waiting for your response.
|
|
|
Post by Omwenga on Feb 14, 2014 1:23:30 GMT 3
Otishotish, Do "you" agree that Uhuru and Ruto should NOT have run for elections in the first place, particularly in view of the serious charges against them? Wanyee, Whether Uhuru and Ruto should have run or allowed to run is a moot issue. Marafakiki na adui walio hapa Southeast Asia ninapotembelea jitangaze kiprivate tukutane...priority ni maadui sababu lazima waelimishwe hakuna nia ya kua maadui.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Feb 14, 2014 8:21:40 GMT 3
Kamalet, Yes, Uhuru and Ruto had a constitutional right to run for elections, but they had (have) the "moral responsibility" not to have done so, owing to the serious charges pending against them. (In the same way that we expect other civil servants to take leaves of absence when they are being investigated for official misconduct). --- Otishotish, I am still waiting for your response. I am not sure you can ever call out for the moral police when it comes to politics - I am not even sure why I am telling you this!!
|
|
|
Post by mank on Feb 14, 2014 8:55:17 GMT 3
In the meantime, 'Amicus' Prof. Githu Muigai has laid down the procedure as is in the Kenyan law for obtaining whatever information the court requires from the GoK. We can now clearly see where this is headed. Poor OTP!! ~~ Mwalimumkuu @nyumbakubwa ~~ I must confess the lawyer made me feel good about that union of mostly-the-unrelated, that is the our Nation ... having been curved out through the selfish interests of a foreign master. I never would do a Njakip although I specially appreciate the guiding factors, but my pride is in the people ... not the government. It takes an event like that of the good lawyer speaking loudly and knowledgeably, especially at a forum like this one (no need to repeat my qualifications of it) for the union, to make me identify. Whao!
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Feb 14, 2014 19:42:10 GMT 3
Otishotish, Do "you" agree that Uhuru and Ruto should NOT have run for elections in the first place, particularly in view of the serious charges against them? Wanyee, Whether Uhuru and Ruto should have run or allowed to run is a moot issue. Marafakiki na adui walio hapa Southeast Asia ninapotembelea jitangaze kiprivate tukutane...priority ni maadui sababu lazima waelimishwe hakuna nia ya kua maadui. Wanyee, Omwenga, With our new constitution in mind ---and you know its billed reputation and purported purpose, Uhuruto definitely should not have run for President. Omwenga is wrong to say this is a moot issue. What is the issue: the issue, for those who missed the enlengthened debate right here on Jukwaa, is basically the interpretation of the integrity clause in the new constitution. And therefrom, setting the moral bar that sieves off rot. THE INTEGRITY CLAUSE. It is amazing that Omwenga now feigns ignorance of the shenanigans that encompassed the process of scripting bills which were meant to operationalise this section, the process which was called MUTILATION. Deliberate and studied mutilation. Mutula Kilonzo, a late convert, had to finally accept this was the word, mutilation, because even a straightforward understanding of INTEGRITY, minimalist before lawyer speak muddles the waters, was already incompatible with suspect to ---[abeting, organising, facilitating, ordering]--- crimes against humanity. Of course one of the greatest Missing in Action intellectual performances, was the Canadian CJ Willy Mutunga, whom b6k correctly disparages to the chagrin of the administrator, as backpack-toting nincompoop! This CJ man is philosopher, legal scholar, and some Judge. He is therefore uniquely in a position to author a fearsome treatise on the concept of INT3GRITY, In all its facets. In the abstract –-purely as a theoretical construct; in the relative [as it unfolds in the uneven levels of socio-political evolution]; then in political reality; and then: as a LEGAL TERM in different forms of legal infrastructures, and finally anglo-saxon commonwealth where we belong. Now if Oloo posts Mutunga’s Opus Magnimus [Magnificent work] on INTEGRITY, and a special paragraph in the rendition of its possible interpretations in the context of the new constitution of Kenya, promulgated by popular will, then surely I shall change my mind to hail him as backpacking legal genius! (From those possible interpretations, we could then reach a consensus on the binding standard, and formalise it as our national --public office morality-- benchmark) [Though If I remember his crippled judgement on the Judges Warsame and the ’camel’ Ibrahim, I would definitely go recidivist!] Intelligent opinion is this: the CJ and Kenya legal experts left the integrity clause for what it was, because even a lame interpretation would be impossible to put into practice. That is, all the leading candidates were, in terms of integrity, pure Junk.Musa Mudavadi? ----his tenure as finance minister would not pass an integrity test Raila Odinga? ---- His business dealings with Moi would not stand bright light Uhuru Kenyatta? ---Heir to raw robbery. He would pass the charge handling/laundering stolen goods. But the ICC? No, he would fail that one. Kalonzo Musyoka? ----This guy would likey have passed the I-test,become the leading candidate, and possibly president. In other words, the integrity clause would have had the effect of a revolutionary decapitation of the top crop. In historical reality, such a radical surgery ---the containment of a whole political elite, has never happened without the physical incarceration or extermination of the lot. This is an iron fact in history. The ruthless bottom line which no scholarly or philosophical thesis can unhinge. And so, the thrust of the constitution had to be thwarted. This is an issue which can never be moot, Omwenga. This, what test of hygiene the leaders of a country must pass, is the core question of civilisation. --There are extremes in the world, like countries where having failed to pay a parking ticket will automatically disqualify one from holding a public office! It is just that we as a political polity, are still lower down the scales of evolution. That is also why it takes the parliament to inform the registrar of companies, that she actually has a confused database! Ooops! two Chinese Roads and Bridges Cos! The digital regime proves to be pre-analogue! (those days of catalogue cards you saw in Libraries in the 60s) And that being babies, is how one can explain that a whole chairman of Central Bank of Kenya, our Alan Greenspan or Ben Bernanke equivalent, spends ksh. 3 bn on some faulty electrical wires and three 2nd hand computers, And stays in charge of a $40 bn GDP! A bit of travel will be good, just to know what other possibilities exist. I wish Mutunga would have traveled to Canada, he would know integrity can never be a mute issue in politics and law! What did Ocampo say between the lines? Mutunga wanted him to make the decision for him!
|
|
|
Post by Omwenga on Feb 15, 2014 4:16:02 GMT 3
Jakaswanga,
You've laid out a well thought out and argued thesis but I am afraid you miss my point why I am saying this is a moot issue.
On matters politics, intellectualism is to probe and set forth practical solutions for the body politic to be a more improved vehicle to deliver the masses from their abject poverty or substandard living to a more equal society without threatening the haves and their comfort for doing the latter must out of necessity be counterproductive and often with dire consequences.
It would seem to me therefore a good doze of sobriety consistent with reality is called for in navigating through this fine balancing act if it's intellectualism we're talking about as opposed to understandable but ill-advised reactive politics which often leads to a more destructive and damning outcome than the rare occasion when that's not the case.
That's not to say coiling and putting one's tail between the legs is the way to go neither does it mean beating on a dead horse would somehow exact more pain on the horse than already delivered; rather simply let go and and find another way to use the wasted energy you would have otherwise expended.
|
|
|
Post by Omwenga on Feb 15, 2014 4:19:27 GMT 3
Jakaswanga,
You've laid out a well thought out and argued thesis but I am afraid you miss my point why I am saying this is a moot issue.
On matters politics, intellectualism is to probe and set forth practical solutions for the body politic to be a more improved vehicle to deliver the masses from their abject poverty or substandard living to a more equal society without threatening the haves and their comfort for doing the latter must out of necessity be counterproductive and often with dire consequences.
It would seem to me therefore a good doze of sobriety consistent with reality is called for in navigating through this fine balancing act if it's intellectualism we're talking about as opposed to understandable but ill-advised reactive politics which often leads to a more destructive and damning outcome than the rare occasion when that's not the case.
That's not to say coiling and putting one's tail between the legs is the way to go neither does it mean beating on a dead horse would somehow exact more pain on the horse than already delivered; rather simply let go and and find another way to use the wasted energy you would have otherwise expended.
|
|
|
Post by Omwenga on Feb 15, 2014 4:20:42 GMT 3
Jakaswanga,
You've laid out a well thought out and argued thesis but I am afraid you miss my point why I am saying this is a moot issue.
On matters politics, intellectualism is to probe and set forth practical solutions for the body politic to be a more improved vehicle to deliver the masses from their abject poverty or substandard living to a more equal society without threatening the haves and their comfort for doing the latter must out of necessity be counterproductive and often with dire consequences.
It would seem to me therefore a good doze of sobriety consistent with reality is called for in navigating through this fine balancing act if it's intellectualism we're talking about as opposed to understandable but ill-advised reactive politics which often leads to a more destructive and damning outcome than the rare occasion when that's not the case.
That's not to say coiling and putting one's tail between the legs is the way to go neither does it mean beating on a dead horse would somehow exact more pain on the horse than already delivered; rather simply let go and and find another way to use the wasted energy you would have otherwise expended.
|
|
|
Post by Omwenga on Feb 15, 2014 4:21:54 GMT 3
Jakaswanga,
You've laid out a well thought out and argued thesis but I am afraid you miss my point why I am saying this is a moot issue.
On matters politics, intellectualism is to probe and set forth practical solutions for the body politic to be a more improved vehicle to deliver the masses from their abject poverty or substandard living to a more equal society without threatening the haves and their comfort for doing the latter must out of necessity be counterproductive and often with dire consequences.
It would seem to me therefore a good doze of sobriety consistent with reality is called for in navigating through this fine balancing act if it's intellectualism we're talking about as opposed to understandable but ill-advised reactive politics which often leads to a more destructive and damning outcome than the rare occasion when that's not the case.
That's not to say coiling and putting one's tail between the legs is the way to go neither does it mean beating on a dead horse would somehow exact more pain on the horse than already delivered; rather simply let go and and find another way to use the wasted energy you would have otherwise expended.
|
|