Bashir is wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) on ten counts of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide allegedly committed in Sudan’s western region since the conflict broke out in 2003.

The Sudanese leader received backing from Arab and African countries but has still seen his travel restricted to friendly countries that could give him assurances that they will not arrest him.

Libya is not a member of the ICC and therefore has no obligation to detain Bashir. But it was the National Transitional Council (NTC), which is now in control of the country, that asked the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) earlier this year to refer the situation in Libya to the Hague tribunal in order to investigate possible crimes committed following the uprising against late leader Muammar Gaddafi.

“[W]e did raise this issue with Libyan officials. I will tell you we raised it relative late, because we learned about the visit relatively late. The Libyan Government knows our view that we oppose invitations, facilitation, or support for travel by President Bashir because he’s a subject of an ICC arrest warrant. We have a long policy of urging other nations to do the same, and obviously we have long supported efforts to bring those responsible for genocide and crimes against humanity and war crimes to justice,” the U.S. State department spokesperson Victoria Nuland told reporters today.

“We have also said to the Libyans that we would like to see them join the international community in calling for the Government of Sudan to cooperate fully with the ICC. So this is the conversation we’re having with the Libyans,” Nuland said.

The U.S. official said that they will continue talking to Tripoli over its ties with Sudan and Bashir.

“As with many things, this is a first time as a free government they’ve had to encounter these issues, they’ve been sort of outside this statute for some time. So I think that we will continue our discussion about the appropriate way to deal with Sudan and to deal with Bashir” she said.

Bashir has disclosed following Gaddafi’s downfall that his country provided military help to the NTC during the course of the battles in Libya throughout most of this year.

During his visit last week, Bashir offered the NTC help with building a national army and integrating the rebels. He also discussed securing the borders and joint efforts to prevent smuggling of weapons that were owned by Gaddafi’s regime.

In Libya, a former NTC official suggested that receiving Bashir is more of a pragmatic decision.

“I personally agree that there is a moral obligation to arrest Bashir, but this is not the position of the Libyan government right now – they are racing against time to restore law and order and stability to the country so the considerations of the government are different… and the world should not forget that the Libyan revolution and people received considerable support from the government of Sudan in overthrowing Gaddafi,” he said.

Sánchez had claimed that he had not been involved in the attacks which were carried out in Paris and Marseilles but new evidence came to light which saw Carlos the Jackal in a French court again this week.  He was handed down another life sentence for four bomb attacks which left several dead and many more injured.

The new trial was ordered in 2007 and began earlier this year.  Three other people thought to be involved in the bombings also stood trial.

Carlos the Jackal is already behind bars in France for other offences committed during the 1980s, he was convicted of the murder of two French secret agents and a Lebanese informer back in the 1970s.

It would be decades before the man known as Carlos the Jackal would get justice though.  It wasn’t until 1994 that he was arrested in Sudan and in 1997 he was sentenced to life imprisonment.  He was arrested in Sudan after a deal with French and US authorities.

Carlos the Jackal, who was originally born in Venezuela, did admit involvement in some failed bombings. 

1. Algeria – land area: 919,595 sq mi/2,381,741 sq km; population: 35,415,000; capital: Algiers

2. Angola – land area: 481,354 sq mi/1,246,700 sq km; population: 18,484,000; capital: Luanda

3. Benin– land area: 43,484 sq mi/112,622 sq km; population: 9,056,000; capital: Porto-Novo

4. Botswana – land area: 224,607 sq mi/581,730 sq km; population: 1,893,000; capital: Gaborone

5. Burkina Faso – land area: 105,869 sq mi/274,200 sq km; population: 15,454,000; capital: Ouagadougou

6. Burundi – land area: 10,747 sq mi/27,834 sq km; population: 9,417,000; capital: Bujumbura

7. Cameroon – land area: 183,569 sq mi/475,442 sq km; population: 19,331,000; capital: Yaounde

8. Cape Verde – land area: 1,557 sq mi/4,033 sq km; population: 566,000; capital: Praia

9. Central African Republic – land area: 240,535 sq mi/622,984 sq km; population: 4,574,000; capital: Bangui

10. Chad – land area: 495,755 sq mi/1,284,000 sq km; population: 11,678,000; capital: N’Djamena

11. Comoros – land area: 719 sq mi/1,862 sq km; population: 773,000; capital: Moroni

12. Republic of Congo – land area: 132,047 sq mi/342,000 sq km; population: 4,012,000; capital: Brazzaville

13. Democratic Republic of Congo – land area: 905,355 sq mi/2,344,858 sq km; population: 69,963,000; capital: Kinshasa

14. Cote d’Irvoire (Ivory Coast) – land area: 124,504 sq mi/322,463 sq km; population: 21,059,000; population: Yamoussoukro

15. Djibouti – land area: 8,958 sq mi/23,200 sq km; population: 877,000; capital: Djibouti

16. Egypt – land area: 363,220 sq mi/940,736 sq km; population: 81,071,000; capital: Cairo

17. Equatorial Guinea – land area: 10,831 sq mi/28,051 sq km; population: 598,000; capital: Malabo

18. Eritrea – land area: 45,406 sq mi/117,600 sq km; population: 5,338,000; capital: Asmara

19. Ethiopia– land area: 435,186 sq mi/1,12,127 sq km: population: 88,013,000; capital: Addis Ababa

20. Gabon – land area: 103,347 sq mi/267,667 sq km; population: 1,394,000; capital: Libreville

21. Gambia – land area: 4,361 sq mi/11,295 sq km; population: 1,847,000; capital: Banjul

22. Ghana – land area: 92,098 sq mi/238,533 sq km; population: 2,842,000; capital: Accra

23. Guinea – land area: 94,926 sq mi/245,857 sq km; population: 10,088,000; capital: Conakry

24. Guinea-Bissau – land area: 13,948 sq mi/36,125 sq km; population: 1,803,000; capital: Bissau

25. Kenya – land area: 224,081 sq mi/580,367 sq km; population: 40,602,000; capital: Nairobi

26. Lesotho – land area: 11,720 sq mi/30,355 sq km; population: 2,046,000; capital: Maseru

27. Liberia – land area: 43,000 sq mi/111,369 sq km; population: 4,177,000; capital: Monrovia

28. Libya – land area: 679,362 sq mi/1,759,540 sq km; population: 6,518,000; capital: Tripoli

29. Madagascar – land area: 226,658 sq mi/587,041 sq km; population: 21,200,000; capital: Antananarivo

30. Malawi – land area: 45,747 sq mi/118,484 sq km; population: 14,735,000; capital: Lilongwe

31. Mali – land area: 478,841 sq mi/1,240,192 sq km; population: 13,489,000; capital: Bamako

32. Mauritania – land area: 397,955 sq mi/1,030,700 sq km; population: 3,384,000; capital: Nouakchott

33. Mauritius – land area: 788 sq mi/2,040 sq km; population: 1,292,000; capital: Port Louis

34. Morocco – land area: 172,414 sq mi/446,550 sq km; population: 32,554,000; capital: Rabat

35. Mozambique – land area: 308,642 sq mi/799,380 sq km; population: 22,351,000; capital: Maputo

36. Namibia – land area: 318,261 sq mi/824, 292 sq km; population: 2,137,000; capital: Windhoek

37. Niger – land area: 489,191 sq mi/1,267,000 sq km; population: 15,768,000; capital: Niamey

38. Nigeria – land area: 356,669 sq mi/923,768 sq km; population: 155,142,000; capital: Abuja

39. Rwanda – land area: 10,169 sq mi/26,338 sq km; population: 10,534,000; capital: Kigali

40. Sao Tome and Principe – land area: 372 sq mi/964 sq km; population: 166,000; capital: Sao Tome

41. Senegal – land area: 75,955 sq mi/196,722 sq km; population: 13,315,000; capital: Dakar

42. Seychelles – land area: 176 sq mi/455 sq km; population: 88,000; capital: Victoria

43. Sierra Leone – land area: 27,699 sq mi/71,740 sq km; population: 6,276,000; capital: Freetown

44. Somalia – land area: 246,201 sq mi/637,657 sq km; population: 9,484,000; capital: Mogadishu

45. South Africa – land area: 470,693 sq mi/1,219,090 sq km; population: 49,237,000; capital: Cape Town; Pretoria; Bloemfontein

46. Sudan – land area: 967,500 sq mi/2,505,813 sq km; population: 41,186,000; capital: Khartoum

47. Swaziland – land area: 6,704 sq mi/17,363 sq km; population: 1,141,000; capital: Mbabane

48. Tanzania – land area: 364,900 sq mi/945,087 sq km; population: 43,526,000; capital: Dodoma

49. Togo – land area: 21,925 sq mi/56,785 sq km; population: 7,091,000; capital: Lome

50. Tunisia – land area: 63,170 sq mi/163,610 sq km; population: 10,640,000; capital: Tunis

51. Uganda – land area: 93,065 sq mi/241,038 sq km; population: 33,984,000: capital: Kampala

52. Zambia – land area: 290,585 sq mi/752,612 sq km; population: 12,689,000; capital: Lusaka

53. Zimbabwe – land area: 150,870 sq mi/390,757 sq km; population: 13,733,000; capital: Harare

            Since March of 2003, there have been widespread and violent conflicts in Darfur, a region of west Sudan. Rebel groups, principally the Sudanese Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), rose up against the Sudanese government, accusing them of favoring Arab Sudanese over black Africans, who have faced tensions for many years over land and grazing rights. This sparked a large government anti-resistance campaign, carried out in cooperation with the Janjaweed, an Arab militia, involving widespread violence and terror. The events involved with this campaign, have been called genocide, particularly by people who support direct military intervention. However, the events in Darfur, although unfortunate, do not match the official definition of genocide. Despite the label of “genocide” failing to apply to this situation, the U.S., in cooperation with the international community, should act to provide humanitarian aid to refugees, disband the Janjaweed, prevent further violence by threatening the Sudanese government with sanctions, establish safe havens and no fly zones, restrict travel outside the capital, and completely freeze the assets of certain political figures who are identified with having a large involvement in the violence and support of the Janjaweed.

            The situation in Darfur cannot be called genocide because what has taken place does not fit the established definition at the Genocide Convention in 1951. According to the legal definition, as defined by Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, genocide includes “any acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, including killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” Although there has been “cause of serious bodily and mental harm” to civilians, the “intent to destroy a national, ethnical, or religious group” is missing, according to the 2005 report to the UN Secretary General regarding the situation in Darfur.

The International Commission of the inquiry established that the Government of Sudan and the Janjaweed are responsible for major human rights violations, including indiscriminate attacks on civilians, such as mass killings, torture, rape, pillaging, and the destruction of villages. However, the Commission also found that the black Africans of Sudan weren’t being specifically targeted. As mentioned prior, the attacks were indiscriminate; against anyone associated with the resistance. Simply that some tribes were attacked and their tribe members forcibly displaced does not warrant the use of the term “genocide.”. It is recognized that in some instances, crimes were committed with genocidal intent, particularly by the Janjaweed; however these can only be addressed by a competent court on a “case by case basis.”

The term “genocide” not applying to this situation “should not detract from the gravity of the crimes perpetrated in that region” as stated by the report to the UN Secretary General.” The crimes committed in the region are immensely serious, including crimes against humanity and war crimes, and are just as grave as genocide. The U.S. should therefore act, in cooperation with the international community, to prevent further crimes.

An estimated 2.7 million people have been displaced by the conflicts and many of these people are living in refugee camps. The U.S. should provide humanitarian aid to these camps, as many don’t have access to clean water, food, fuel, hygiene, or proper waste disposal. Resources for the aid can be obtained through donations or government funds. The U.S. should also urge other countries to contribute as well. Safe havens to protect civilians should also be established, enforced by armed UN Peacekeepers. Additionally, the U.S. should provide the necessary aid to the UN, such as peacekeepers or resources, such that they have the means to intervene and help the victims of the conflict.    

            Politically and economically, there are several actions that will help reduce the conflicts. First of all, individuals within the Sudanese government who play a large role in promoting the violence should be identified, and have all their assets frozen. The Sudanese government is desperately corrupt, so this method will be effective in scaring the corrupt government officials into changing their policy. Additionally, certain multi-national Sudanese companies should have their assets frozen to further prevent money from going into the corrupt government, further pressuring the government officials to act.

            Militarily, the U.S. can do several things. Many of the attacks on villages comprise of an attack from the air by government aircraft, followed by a ground attack by the Janjaweed. The U.S., again in cooperation with the international community, should establish no fly zones over areas with civilian populations. This will hinder the ability of the Sudanese government to use aircraft against their victims. To deal with the Janjaweed, many steps need to be taken. Although it may be beyond the power of the international community to completely dismantle the Janjaweed without direct military intervention, it is possible take steps to weaken the Janjaweed. First of all, the international community should take necessary action to stop weapons, ammunition, and supplies from reaching the Janjaweed, which are thought to be provided by the government, primarily by helicopter. Therefore, the international community should intercept weapons being sent into the country, and once again, a no fly zone should be established to prevent supplies from being brought to the Janjaweed by helicopter. Also, travel outside of the capital should be restricted, to spotlight regime leaders as not being full members of the international community, and to hinder their ability to interact with the Janjaweed.

            Despite the events in Sudan not fully matching the definition of “genocide,” the U.S. must still take action in cooperation with the international community, politically, economically, and to some degree, militarily, as the events in Sudan are just as grave as genocide. Overall, the U.S. needs to participate in providing humanitarian aid to refugees, dismantling or weakening the Janjaweed, threatening the Sudanese government with sanctions, establishing safe havens and no fly zones to protect civilians and prevent supplies from reaching the Janjaweed, restricting travel outside of the capital, and freezing the assets of regime leaders identified as having a large role in initiating or supporting violence.  

Sources

http://www.un.org/News/dh/dev/scripts/darfur_formatted.htm

http://www.thenation.com/article/genocide-darfur

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/04/world/fg-darfur-genocide4

http://www.darfurscores.org/darfur

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3496731.stm

http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/sudan/fact_sheet.pdf

http://www.un.org/News/dh/sudan/com_inq_darfur.pdf

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/jihr/v5/n3/7/

Elie Wiesel speaks of what ordinary people can do to prevent genocide, what they can do in reaction to what is already happening. Many people don’t do anything, for their governments don’t do anything. But Wiesel argues that we all must speak out, even if it falls upon deaf ears. The words will bring comfort to the victims as well as keep our own conscience alive. (source 1)

When ordered to do illegal and/or immoral actions, should individuals obey? Arendt watched the war trial of one of the convicted Nazis, and reached several conclusions. The man said he realized “he had participated in was perhaps one of the greatest crimes in history, but, he insisted, if he had not done so, his conscience would have bothered him at the time.” Arendt believes this is so because of the utter lack of good role models to follow during that time of war; that people just followed orders because there was nothing to say that that action is wrong. Nobody was there to tell them what was morally acceptable or inacceptable. At the time of conflict, most of the rules that govern our conscience are tossed out of the window. For many of the atrocities there weren’t even any rules since they were unprecedented by anything before in human history. Only after the people commit these crimes do they realize how terrible it is. (source 2)

Even today, the governments in places where genocide has occurred deny the occurrence of such a thing. The most notable was the Turkish government denying that Armenian genocide ever occurred.  The journalist Richard Cohen had written an article about the Armenian genocide, and then the Turkish ambassador invited him for a talk. The ambassador completely rejected everything that Cohen had believed, stating that it was a civil war, not genocide, that the Turkish government lost control of its soldiers and could not protect the Armenians. Those statements shook his beliefs, insinuating doubt. The fact that this terrible event is still denied mocks the memory of those who died, and claims one more victim: truth. (source 3)

In places far from where genocide occurs, we get desensitized from the problems from elsewhere in the world. Eventually, people become objects, things that we cannot connect with. Darfur is a perfect example of this, it has gone on for 6 years but little has been done to stop it. People are still dying but we don’t care; so isolated by our personal needs that the needs of others are meaningless.  Elie Wiesel said we become inhuman when we don’t care about others anymore, don’t want to give acknowledgement that they are human as well. (source 4)

Wanted for committing genocide, the Sudanese president Hassan al-Bashir may lose many of his allies, as they work to distance themselves from him. By calling for his arrest and trial, people are actively acting to end genocide by sending the message that even heads of state will be prosecuted, that nobody is exempt from international law. (source 5)

America’s policy toward genocide is puzzling at best. It is improving over time but our role in ending genocide is not enough. The cold war has ended, human rights are spreading across the globe, but genocide still occurs. America is turning a blind eye to those events until it is too late. We only intervene in places where our own interests are threatened, not when other human lives are at risk. America’s leaders have changed their policy many times, but it still means the same thing. Whether it is “we didn’t know” or “we didn’t fully appreciate it”, America does not want to know about the horrors that are occurring elsewhere in the world. They are so terrible that we cannot comprehend it, that we don’t have anything to compare it to. The holocaust is not forgotten, it is just relegated as history, something that won’t happen again. But it is still happening but each event is not as bad as the holocaust, therefore is not our priority to stop. Because of the unknowns, the US does not intervene. But because of that, the regimes intent on committing genocide know they can get away with their actions. America must set a precedent so that the tyrannical regimes will know that there will be swift and harsh punishments. Many more lives could have been saved if that was the case. Also, the United States does not have the will to act, the public as well as the government has no interest in intervening. There is no public outrage that forces the government to act. Our policies must change, as history has proven over and over again, that genocidal leaders often terrorize their own country, and then attack neighboring countries, spreading death and fear over the region. (source 6)

1.      Around the world, there is a growing problem on the crisis of development refugees, the people who were coerced to relocate because of development policies, programs, and projects not by wars or political conflicts. Usually, these people who are forced to flee from a disaster or conflict receive sympathetic attention and international aid. The same cannot be said for the millions of people worldwide who have been displaced by development, even though the consequences they face may be comparably dire. 

The central view of those involved in the development of traditional, simple, Third World societies was that they should be transformed into modern, complex, Westernized countries. As seen in this perspective, large-scale, capital-intensive development projects hastened the journey for a brighter and better future. Since it made them more vulnerable to change, it is deemed a necessary evil or even an actual good if people were uprooted along the way. 

Sudan is one of the victims of this ordeal and their women are out on a limb. Sudanese women stay restrained to the private world where they are in charge of the traditionally unpaid domestic chores. A woman’s prime traditional social role in Sudanese society is marriage and bearing children. Sudan has been known for the world’s largest crisis of human displacement and Sudanese women are suffering severely. There are several Sudanese women refugees who have been misrepresented, marginalized, or ignored.

There is a need to challenge the mistreated and reliant image of African women refugees by raising their power. Considering the experiences of southern Sudanese women who have found refuge in Cairo, Egypt, there have been analyses of the social, cultural, economic, and political transformations that have occurred among these women as they navigate the challenges of life as refugees.

Sudanese women are not merely victims of circumstance who are dependent on their host country and on foreign aid to improve their lives. Some of the issues on the displaced Sudanese women include resettlement and compensation. Based on African feminism, black feminism, and antiracial and critical race theory, Sudanese women utilize their recently acquired skills and knowledge to challenge their past and challenge the image of women refugees as victims. Southern Sudanese women refugees need to see themselves not as victims but as agents of social action and change.

Displacement has to be seen as a broad and multilayered phenomenon. Looking at the experience of displaced Afro- Colombians, there is a massive displacement from their home communities in the Pacific since the late 1990s. In terms of several interrelated processes, this region has seen unparalleled changes. These changes include the increased pace of development and extraction of natural resources after 1980, the increase of significant social movements in the wake of the cultural and territorial rights given to ethnic minorities by the National Constitution of 1991, and the spread of the armed conflict, with the concomitant regime of terror and displacement.

Development and modernity must be seriously scrutinized as intrinsically displacement-creating processes. There exists a widening gap between modernity’s displacement-producing tendencies and displacement-averting mechanisms. New policies are needed to construct on local communities’ ability to defy in place and to rebuild their own alternative modernization. 

A  mujahid (”holy warrior”)  fights in a jihad for  “Allah,  the Truth”  and defends it at all costs ; he is a martyr if he  dies or is killed for it. Bin Laden’s jihad was ”to lift the word of God, to make His religion victorious.”  As a mujahid  he  called a jihad  to unite the Muslims against “infidels” (nonbelievers of Allah) and foreign forces on “Allah’s sacred soil”–  the Soviet army that occupied Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989; the American troops in Saudi Arabia from the time of the Gulf Crisis in 1990; the Israelis in Palestine.  According to his “fatwa” ( religious decree) it is the duty of every Muslim to wage  a relentless war against  foreign occupation or invasion of Muslim lands. Osama bin Laden, collectively a huge rescue squad, waged that war in an epic clash with superpowers.

Osama bin Laden’s conflict with America  began thirty-two years ago  when   in 1979 Soviet Russia occupied Afghanistan and established a puppet Communist government. The United States  viewed  the occupation of Russia as a form of imperialism ( annexation and control of  other  lands) and invasion  and so, America sent  $600 million as financial aid to Afghanistan through Pakistan’s Intelligence Agency. Osamabin Laden considered the  presence of the Soviets on foreign soil as a  form of profanity or desecration of ”Allah’s holy land” and so  with his own money ($300 million) and donations,  he recruited  35,000 warriors to drive  the infidels. The Saudi  Arabia government  and wealthy Muslims donated $600 million a year through his connections with the Saudi royal family  and the petrol-billionaires of the Gulf.  After ten years of battle, Russia  became bankrupt  and lost the war.

In 1988, one year before the last Russian troop left Afghan soil,  bin Laden formed the al-Qaeda, a radical movement inspired by the teaching of  Islamic author and thinker Sayyid Qutb. Qutb  preached that  the  sharia (Islam law) was weakened through ignorance, and that there was a need for  principled  Muslims to establish “true Islamic states” free from foreign influence, geared towards the creation of a new caliphate.Those that  oppose Islam become enemies.

In 1989, after Russia pulled out its  last troop from Afghanistan,  Osamabin Laden worked hand in hand with  Egyptian  jihadists and  with the Taliban (a radical group of  warlords composed of young students  who ruled Afghanistan with iron hand).  The Taliban  legitimized public executions and amputations, non-education of women and the  the burka to cover women’s faces. They  banned the performing arts (singing, dancing, music);  censored television; destroyed  ancient art and artifacts. Per capita income was $300 a year. Leading desperate lives, the Afghans joined bin Laden’s jihad and Afghanistan  became the spawning ground of terrorists, home to the al-Qaeda.  

In 1990 bin Laden  returned to Saudi Arabia when Iraq invaded Kuwait.  The situation put the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  and its oil fields at risk by neighbors fighting, and so  bin Laden  volunteered  his  mujaheddin (”holy warriors” ) but King Fahd  deployed  instead American troops on Saudi territory. Spurned, bin Laden  began hating the Americans and   publicly denounced  King Fahd for what he thought to be a betrayal to the jihad cause. King Fahd banished  him from Saudi Arabia .

A man contemplating revenge “keeps his wounds green.”  In 1994 bin Laden resumed his verbal attack at King Fahd. King Fahd  revoked his passport and citizenship. To add insult to injury his Saudi Arabian billionaire father cut off his monthly stipend ($7million a year, now equal to more or less $11 million)  and  disowned him. The Saudi government froze his  assets; then,  he was exiled to Sudan  from where he was also  banished. Saudi Arabia banished him permanently after that. 

Bin  Laden took refuge in Afghanistan, and the  ruling Talibans  legitimized the al-Qaeda. “Man is only truly great when he acts from passions.” Since the wealthy Arab families and businessmen saw that he was passionate in pursuing his jihad, they did not stop supporting him. He laundered their  cash donations  in ”unscrupulous” Islamic banks  by  either channeling them to charities  (which served as front liners for  the al-Qaeda)  or  by transporting  cash-filled suitcases to Pakistan’s  unregulated banks that can handle up to $10 million. As  “emir”  (commander)  and senior operations chief of al-Qaeda,  bin Laden had access to  the  money for recruiting and  training  operatives,  for buying tickets and false passports,  for  paying   al-Qaeda members,  and  for running overseas-driven businesses.

The defeat of Russia in the ten-year Soviet-Afghan War (1979-1989) taught the scheming  bin Laden  that superpowers collapse not because they lose the war but because their economy crumbles as a result of war. Vengeance is a delicious fruit that one waits upon  to ripen.  Still wounding from his rift with King Fahd who preferred American troops  over  his “holy warriors”, he masterminded a  plan to bankrupt the United States by means of provoking itself to bankruptcy from long and  weary  engagements.   

In 1996 the al-Qaeda announced a  jihad to expel foreign troops from what they called “Islamic lands”  through  bin Laden’s  religious edict. The mission,  a metaphor for a declaration of war against the United States and its allies,  was  ”to kill the Americans and their allies , civilians,  and military … in accord with the words of Allah… until there is no more oppression and there prevail justice and faith in Allah.”

The September 11, 2001 attack of America was a foregone conclusion. The attack was the most devastating in American history, killing approximately 3,000 people. Two commercial airliners rammed into the World Trade Center , a third one into the Pentagon, and a fourth one originally intended to target the US Capitol crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. The United States intelligence agents  identified the perpetrators of the attack as the al-Qaeda headed by bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, and others  along with the Taliban.  

The  perpetrators, in spite of the ultimatum to surrender so they would be put to  trial, evaded arrest.  Whereupon, on October 7,  2001 at the order of  President George W. Bush,  the US Navy  and  US Air Forces launched Operation Enduring Freedom along with the British Armed Forces and  struck at al-Qaeda and Taliban targets throughout Afghanistan, crippling their power, but not exterminating them. The remnants of the attack  found the nearest  bolt-hole: Pakistan.

In 2003 President Bush sought to find evidence if bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were collaborating to attack the United States. Whereupon, he invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein, his three sons, and the Baath Party, but no evidence of any collaboration was found. He also failed to find the  suspected weapons of mass destruction, a frustration he accepted. 

May 1, 2011 ended  fifteen years of global  manhunt for Osama bin Laden when he was gunned down by the  US  Navy SEAL (sea, air, land), an elite commando ( military unit) composed of “the best of the best”  trained soldiers in the world, acknowledged superheroes  with  legendary fighting skills. The SEALS operate in anonymity, a standard operating procedure. After  the operation,  they disappear  into the shadows.  

It is told that  in an obscure mission whether to take bin Laden dead or alive,  thirty to forty SEALS  descended  from two helicopters and stormed into bin Laden’s compound at Abbottabad, Pakistan where  bin Laden  was thought to be in hiding in a  not too  heavily-guarded three-storey mansion  for six years. Osama bin Laden was unarmed but resisted arrest. A  woman tried to shield him but was forced  away. In the fray,  bin Laden’s face was blasted beyond recognition: a bloody gunshot wound  to his head, the left eye splintered–a  gory image, perhaps more bizarre than the evil things he did. It took less than forty minutes to complete the operation. His body, reduced to a bag of meat and bones,  was taken aboard a ship,  washed and treated  in accordance with Muslim ritual, after which  the thing was unceremoniously  thrown into the sea where the yawning ocean received it.

After bin Laden’s death, many conspiracy  theories have surfaced,  generating more heat than light , a source for splitting hairs, a feeding frenzy among journalists who sometimes turn out to be the bigger story than the event itself as a result of inconsistencies and juggling  of data. There are people who wonder if President Obama  timed the capture of bin Laden to jibe with the coming election. As of now, President Obama has the ace up his sleeves, with an approval rating of 56%. What is he going to do with the 44%?  Fix the economy, easier said than done.  ”In economics the majority is always wrong”. Statistics are inconstant lovers. Even the sun is not steady to the eye.

About the controversial  picture:  Is he the lunatic  guy we got?  The DNA is not infallible. Well…. IF he’s dead , he’s dead: no two ways about it.  The   transparency score? Zero. If the picture is only  a lie or   a trick,  that  is no big deal  because it is easy to photo shop; besides, the more you examine a picture, the more you do not understand. Take it from Hitler: “The more lies, the more you are believed.”  Lie, Obama, lie!  as  long as you don’t put your people in harm’s way. On the opposite side of the spectrum, the hardest thing to keep is the  one that is not there.

Let’s give our leaders the benefit of the doubt. Call it an  inexactitude or a a white lie.   White lies are harmless, may be done for the greater good in the long run.  Some of the Congressmen reportedly saw the gory picture   but dismissed it  later  as fake. Weren’t they delighted? Some people are pleased when they are deceived. The President and Congress are the writers of the first rough draft of history. Did they get it right the first time?  God cannot change the past but historians can.  ”The real war does not get into the books.” (Walt Whitman) The President and the Congressmen are in the same basket. 

 Justice for Osama bin Laden? “Judgment is the first step to retraction”, and so,  one must be careful in putting his hand on the scale. Commonsense and intuition tell us that  injustice becomes more just and fair than justice  when the crime outweighs the punishment. The worst kind of justice that could have been accorded to bin Laden  would be to put him on trial. Sentence first, verdict later,  was the best course of action America  took.  His death was long overdue.  To America which is the  world’s show window  of democracy, “justice delayed is democracy denied” (John F. Kennedy).  Fair vengeance does not call for punishment. Justice may not always be the best policy. “Let the punishment match the offense” would be a strange and unfair concept  of justice applied to bin Laden. Death to  bin Laden was a fulfilment of  his obsession to be a martyr; to America,  a punishment for his wrongdoing. On this score we gave bin Laden a favor; on this account we have not been fully  redressed.

In the context of Islamic justice, did bin Laden get justice?  The Quran (sacred  scripture of Islam) places things “in their rightful place, giving others equal treatment” a concept of equality.  A just Muslim  leader says,  ”I forbid injustice for myself and forbid it also for you.” After the September 11 attacks two wars were launched by America to find  bin Laden  so he could  defend himself in a court of law, but he evaded arrest. He took America on a merry chase for more or less a  decade  hoping to bankrupt America.  Holed up in his hideout,  in  a flash,  before the SEALS put a bullet in his head,  bin Laden lived to see that it was an American bullet that put an end to all that was evil and mortal of him.  Figuratively, he sat on a throne of bayonets. A man who lives by the sword dies by the sword. This is retributive  justice:  the reward of virtue and punishment of vice. This is also Islamic justice, “poetic justice” to the Greeks.  

According to  some senior Islamic scholars,  sea burial  for  bin Laden  does not  square  with the  Muslim tradition for burying  the dead: the  proper style should be, that the head  points  towards the holy city of Mecca. For me,  two horns to adorn the blasted head would make for the most conspicuous head that ever pointed towards Mecca. To equip a devil’s head with a halo would be a parody  (ridicule) to a saint.

Bin Laden  left no  other  lasting memorial  but that he was born and that he died. It is as natural to die as to be born. He died a holy warrior to Allah’s cause.   He had a better burial than the pulverized victims of the September 11 massacre.  What  more could his fans  and followers ask for?

Bin Laden’s memory  lingers on  as a concrete specimen of the “fickleness of breath’s warm power” and of the futility of dreams.  Where is it now, his  dream to unify the Muslims in their jihad against the infidels?  Where is his new caliphate? Will his memory  fester like a toothache among the al-Qaedans  and become a rallying point to pursue his unfinished mission?  Osama bin Laden,  an unfinished song, a glide way to martyrdom, as many of his followers believe. To  most of us,  it is both terrible and amazing how dreams can die. Round  the restlessness of the  yawning ocean that engulfed him  forever,  hovers  the tale of his fall from tyranny and power, whatever that means.    

The al-Qaeda lost a leader but gained  who to them was a martyr.  To this band of  international terrorists bin Laden  perished  not in the way of animal destiny  but in the style of a  holy warrior whose life story squares with the jihad narrative of a man who deserted his material wealth in search of  the ideal.  We have freedom of worship, so let it be. 

But where is PEACE? On one hand, President Barack  Obama, hunter and hunted,  is  the  new hybrid  of the American fox and  the lion: the fox that detects the traps and the lion that terrifies the wolves.  And he is on the warpath. To the al-Qaeda he has this message: America is  reforming not a dead man but everybody else. No pussyfooting on Uncle Tom’s territory.  On the other hand, the al-Qaeda has a new battle song:   ”BARACK OBAMA: WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE”. War, a game of grown-up boys, specializes in miscalculations. Let’s see whose mud hits the hardest. There is no second prize for the runner-up. Shall we not give PEACE a chance?

Osama bin Laden,  “Prince of Terrorists”,   has fallen while America is  still on its toes. America,  misunderstood by bin Laden as  desecrator  of ”Allah’s sacred soil”,   never sought wars of expansion and aggression and the conquest of Islam. This is America:  healer of  the wounds of the defeated.  But Bad Guy Osama bin Laden will never understand this: in death there is no more argument. ###

In addition to the handwritten diary, which presumably would have belonged to bin Laden, during the search of the house in Abbottabad, 100 were seized flash drives and five computers.

U.S. officials quoted by the Associated Press provided information on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about what they have discovered crew SEALs in bin Laden’s hideout. 

Currently, we do not know when or if they will be made public information contained in the log or stored in computers seized.

One of the sons of Osama bin Laden told in the book “Growing up bin Laden that his father used to write down their thoughts and plans, the time when the family lived in Sudan and Afghanistan.

More on LatestWorldNews

Leave Comments Please

          With all the news circling about Bin laden’s death, troubles in the Middle East and in Sudan Africa; I ended up forcing myself to answer one question: What should come first? Peace or Justice? Well my bad if you chose peace. I chose justice.

          There is the absence of the fruit if the tree to bear it doesn’t exist. His holiness, the late Pope John Paul II once said that Peace is just a fruit of justice and without justice; there will be no peace. I guess Martin Luther would have probably slapped me in the face to tell me peace wasn’t made for justice sake, but vise-versa. But trust me, Luther should have looked deeper. Yes ladies and gentlemen, justice is more vital than peace.

 Let us first define justice and peace.

           JUSTICE does not limit itself to the idea of applying the law. It also refers to anything that would uphold fairness and reasonableness especially in ways a populace is treated and how decisions are made. Meanwhile, PEACE refers not merely to the absence of conflict but also the absence of disturbances in our inner selves or may I say, in our conscience.

           This I tell you, our inner selves or conscience, which reminds us of what is right from wrong, is the very chamber of justice. Let’s put it this way, let’s start with this simple example; I got to ask a student whether he would consider my current school as a peaceful institution or not and the reply that I got was “yes” with petty reasons like no one is stabbing each other in the halls or there are no rallies outside.

            For God’s sake PEOPLE, is that for you is peace already? What about the cheating during quizzes? What about my buddy who kept on complaining because his grades were being ditched down by his mentor due to personal reasons?  What about the wedgies and the horrible school life of bullied “losers”? What about the unheard complaints towards the school administration? What about those students who got a glimpse of key answers on books when I and my pals worked long hours just to get those financial statements balanced? Is that peace? It’s nothing but fake! Peace in its strictest sense doesn’t only mean the absence of gang wars, tensions or any type of violence; it’s about the presence of justice. I’ll give you another situation. Let’s make a list of representations first. Fever represents the problem, war, or issue (whatever negative stuff you want it to represent), bed represents peace and medications represent justice. Get it? I hope you do. Once you have a high FEVER, wouldn’t you die just to lie on your bed? Of course you’d love that because the bed would give you a sense of comfort & “peace”. BUT, do you think that would be enough? Hell NO!  GIVE THE BODY WHAT IS DUE TO THE BODY. Better get you’re ass up & ask your doctor to prescribe you the proper medications! We have to search for the root of that evil and give its due medications then only there could we achieve even peace. See? Peace doesn’t necessarily imply justice but justice always implies peace. Justice is like a buy-one-take-one promo in a shop where you get to buy it and get peace at the same time. It’s a done deal package.

            Let’s take a look on more serious issues. I was a freshman in college when I started knowing about crises in Sudan, Africa through the net. I could tell that there is a boxing match between peace and justice in that particular fraction of the globe. Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir was charged and issued an arrest warrant for committing genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes over a slaughter. Imagine. Genocide. An entire ethnic group being slaughtered by the powers of their own president. The accused and his government used its military and technological power to defy the local courts and increase the violence. What’s worse? Those involved in the crime were even granted promotions in higher offices.

             As soon as the international court made moves to put justice for the Sudanese people, Critics would suggest to let justice be delayed for the sake of peace since military soldiers loyal to the government would inflict harm to citizens and peacemaking unions jeopardizing peacemaking efforts. What bothers me is that one Sudanese even said that he no longer cares about what happens to Al-bashir as long as there would be peace. With that, all I can do is just spit with disgust for these ideas. When will these people grasp the fact that the death of an innocent will still conquer as long as the guilty remains in the highest office? The prophet Mohammed once said that you have to give everybody their right to achieve true tranquility but look at how we often give up on our rights and meekly accept injustice as the only choice.

            See how the US troupes’ defiance to surrender made great leaps to the extent of killing Bin Laden. Whether Bin Laden’s dead or not, critics may say US Citizens or any other affected people still can live their usual lives…but don’t we feel less threatened?  Don’t we feel a lot safer? Don’t we feel happy that finally justice is served for those innocent lives tormented by terrorism? Of course we do.

             Justice embodies all means that always justify the end which is always serenity But having peace as an end doesn’t always mean it was obtained through justice neither will it justify any type of inequality. People can be traumatized and be so blinded with peace that they won’t see that starting to fight for the right would put an end to their pain. We don’t have to wonder why justice always blindfolds itself; there is nothing to be preferred before justice, not even peace…not even fake peace.

        Peace can never outweigh justice for its true sense can by no means be felt without it. Justice whether served instantly or not is at all times a fight for what is right while the other could still imply surrender of rights and unheard pleas. A place can renounce violence but still, it can remain a hell where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, to rob and to degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe. Damn are the people who choose to live in peace but are hunted by unresolved protests and unafforded rights just because of fear. I feel terribly sorry for the ones who don’t suffer in any ways yet are jailed by lies and a tampered dignity. What is the use of our constitution which protects our rights if we take it for granted for peace’s sake? We cannot just take the easier road and die regretting we could have fought better. It is also a fact that reconciliation is useless if not accompanied with justice. It never lasts long. Forgiveness and ease should never mean we’ll allow injustice to happen again. If we have to choose, then we better choose something that offers more security as we walk in our daily paths in our dangerous streets. It’s no other than justice. If you want peace, focus on justice. Work for justice.

Image via Wikipedia

Until the recently concluded referendum that split Sudan into Northern and Southern Sudan, the only thing that seemed to come out of that country – now two countries – was trouble.  Despite its troubled history, though, Sudan has produced something, or someone, very worthwhile.  Dr. Mohamed “Mo” Ibrahim, a British mobile communications entrepreneur, was born in Sudan in 1946.   Mo Ibrahim, as he is familiarly known to many, has set out to singlehandedly change the face of Sub-Saharan Africa.

Ibrahim received a B.S. degree from the University of Alexandria in Egypt, and, after working a time for the Sudanese telecommunications agency, moved to England where he worked while studying for a master’s degree in electrical engineering at the University of Bradford.  He then received a PhD in mobile communications from the University of Birmingham. 

Upon completion of his studies, Ibrahim worked for British Telecom, and the later for Cellnet, a subsidiary of British Telecom.  In 1989, he founded MSA, a software and consulting company.  In 2000, Ibrahim sold MSI to Marconi Company.  At the time of the sale, 30% of MSI’s stock was owned by its 800 employees, which Ibrahim had given them in the form of bonuses.

Mo Ibrahim, reportedly worth approximately US $2.5 billion, is, according to the Guardian, one of Britain’s most influential black people.  One could argue that the paper understates the case; with that net worth, he’s undoubtedly one of Britain’s most influential people, period; especially when it comes to Africa.  He has probably had a greater impact on the continent than any other member of the African Diaspora.  In 1998, he founded Celtel, one of Africa’s main mobile phone services.  He later created the Mo Ibrahim foundation, and in 2007 established the Mo Ibrahim Prize for Achievement in African Leadership.  In this, he has the potential to have the greatest impact on Africa, addressing as he does one of the continent’s most critical lacks – effective leadership.  His foundation each year ranks the performance of all 53 African countries, and publishes the Ibrahim Index of African Governance.  The foundation awards a prize to African leaders and governments that have demonstrated excellence in leadership.

Ibrahim was listed in Time magazine’s “Top 100” list in 2008, and has been also in the Forbes “2008 Rich List.”  While there are detractors who don’t hold out much hope that he will be able to truly affect the course of development and democracy in Africa, this once committed Marxist turned devout capitalist, is not letting that dissuade him.  One country at a time, one leader at a time, Mo Ibrahim is demonstrating that one person can, with sufficient commitment, make a difference.