Washington will let ICC hold Darfur trials: report

[CHIMO]

WASHINGTON - The United States has agreed to let the International Criminal Court try people accused of committing war crimes in Sudan's Darfur region, a news report says.

Washington had strongly opposed holding the trials at the UN court in The Hague, but agreed to a compromise on Wednesday, the Associated Press reported, citing officials from the administration of President George W. Bush.

The officials, who asked not to be named because the deal hasn't been made public, told the news agency the compromise includes guarantees that the ICC could not prosecute Americans deployed in Sudan

The compromise marked the latest development in drawn-out efforts by the Security Council to deal with the crisis in Darfur.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/03/30/sudan-050330.html

Hope springs eternal.

[Maple]

1. LOL 'has agreed to let ?'

They didn't have a choice, but the 'spin' makes it sound better.

[CHIMO]

3. They Could

Have rejected it as they have a veto on the security council. That is what was preventing the implementation earlier. This is a great achievement. I wonder what the others had to give up to get this agreement?

[Dover]

2. A great idea so long as it's someone ELSE'S criminal activity

that's being tried.

[struggle4progress]

4. Security Council sends Sudan war crimes suspects to International Criminal

Court

Friday, April 1, 2005

By NICK WADHAMS
Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS -- The U.N. Security Council approved a resolution Thursday to prosecute Sudanese war crimes suspects before the International Criminal Court, after the United States reversed policy and agreed not to use its veto.

The United States won significant concessions, including ironclad guarantees it sought that Americans working in Sudan would not be handed over to either the ICC or any other nation's courts if they are accused of crimes in Sudan.

With Secretary-General Kofi Annan looking on, the council voted 11-0 with four abstentions, the United States, Algeria, Brazil and China. The vote came at 10:30 p.m. EST after hours of delay. <snip>

http://www.napanews.com/templates/index.cfm?template=story_full&id=08404937-152E-4DB1-9C76-7A5FC62703D8

[deminks]

5. What did we do in Sudan???

or what are we planning to do??

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/unsudandarfuriccus

<snip>

After a day of diplomatic back-and-forth, Washington was able to win language saying that nations not party to the court would be exempt from prosecution over Sudan.

The resolution also gave those nations "exclusive jurisdiction" over its nationals -- meaning, for example, that an American charged with killing the citizen of another country in Sudan could only be tried in American court.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, asked why Americans can be held exempt from ICC prosecution but not Sudan, told reporters that the conflict in Darfur had produced an "extraordinary circumstance."

"It is a crisis that is extraordinary in its scope and in its potential for even greater damage to those populations so I think this is a different situation, frankly," Rice said. <snip>

From the original article:

<snip>

The officials, who asked not to be named because the deal hasn't been made public, told the news agency the compromise includes guarantees that the ICC could not prosecute Americans deployed in Sudan. <snip>

[MisterP]

6. if they try any US arms-merchants-cum-mercenaries from there,

the Banana King will invade The Hague.