What do you know about (A) the mass murder in Rwanda, (B) the precise role that Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, 78, played in it, (C) the character of the criminal justice systems (the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, conditions of detention in Rwanda, Gacaca tribunals, etc.) that have handled the Rwanda mass murder cases, and (D) the nature of the Paul Kagame regime?
Concerning (C), see, for instance:
Amnesty International, "Rwanda: The Troubled Course of Justice," 26 April 2000: <http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/countries/rwanda?OpenView&Start=1&Count=30&Expandall> (press release) and <http://web.amnesty.org/aidoc/aidoc_pdf.nsf/index/AFR470102000ENGLISH/$File/AFR4701000.pdf> (full report).
***** 'War By Another Means': a Conversation With Former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark Internews Arusha, Tanzania 04.03.01
...[Ramsey] Clark is at the ICTR [International Criminal Tribunal] to represent Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, an elderly Rwandan pastor about to face trial for genocide and crimes against humanity at the ICTR He has represented Ntakirutimana for the last five years, in American state and federal courts and now at the ICTR.
On Monday Clark told the tribunal judges that the court itself is not independent, that it threatens detainees' fundamental rights and should not have been created by the UN Security Council under article VII of the UN Charter, which he calls "a war powers act". He made these arguments in support of a motion to expand the scope of interpretation of the ICTR's rules about discovery, the process during which two parties to the litigation exchange information, in order for his client to have a fair trial.
Speaking on behalf of Ntakirutimana, Clark explained to the court that the defense is not able to adequately obtain witness statements, which form the basis for the cases at the ICTR. Without access to witnesses or their statements, he can neither counter the information presented by the prosecutor, nor present an alternate version of events in Bisesero region, Rwanda, concerning the role and whereabouts of his client.
In turn, he has asked the tribunal prosecutor make a wide range of witness statements and materials available to the defense.
Clark argues that the continuing political polarization among Rwandans, and the role of the current government in propagating this, make it impossible for defense lawyers to safely bring witnesses to testify, or even to interview them. Clark tells Internews "the possibility of being able to get witness testimony is very low, and the risks for people who are even seen with you is very high". Though the motion and its justification are made according to the parameters of a fair defense, Clark's legal arguments barely veil his political take on the tribunal. That is, he sees it as an essentially political institution - and one that continues to support the longstanding history of discrimination in Rwanda. "Ad hoc tribunals inescapably risk being political," he says. "The decision to include or to exclude is a political one".
The tribunal and the Rwandan government's continued emphasis on its survivor legacy combine to result in discrimination against Rwandan Hutu, according to Clark. He makes this clear in our conversation and in the legal brief which accompanies his motion.
He says "when we take [a charge] as inflammatory and degrading as genocide, it is a powerful tool".
Far from denying the horrors of 1994, he sees the current one-sided prosecution as a manipulation of history, a rewriting of history using courts to serve a particular political agenda. That agenda serves the UN, and whether by accident or design, the current Rwandan government. And underlying that government's will, and UN politics, Clark sees the American government's foreign policy agenda as a primary driver....
Clark thinks a permanent International Criminal Court may succeed where the ICTR has failed. He says "it may not be more selective", but that at least there will be "more selections." In turn, a broader array of individuals can be held accountable in a legal "forum for the application of facts and uniform principles" without the politicization implicit in a the ICTR's narrow jurisdiction, which can only try individuals for acts that took place in Rwanda, in 1994.
A more diverse range of indictees would help to ensure that there is, and that there appear to be, equality before the law. This is critical, says Clark, because "equality is the mother of justice".
It can also help to avoid "the psychological dangers of branding people", groups of people, which in fact is the criminal essence of genocide and crimes against humanity.
Not only people, but events must be somehow equal before the law. According to Clark, the narrow confines of legal rules can only have just result when applied to a wide historical field. If courts can be arbiters of truth, and as such of morals and ultimately of justice, they must exist within wide historical parameters.
Otherwise, argues Clark, courts become historical battlegrounds, rather than citizens' sanctuary from their governments.
Governments which, he says, are the biggest violators of human rights, simply "because they can".
Without the mandate and jurisdiction to take a human and international view of history, the courts are just like any other instrument of political power, a tool in the arsenal to continue a war against civilians, just "by another means".
<http://www2.minorisa.es/inshuti/clark.htm> *****
You don't have to agree with Clark, but his views are quite reasonable.
In any case, if the fact that Clark has chosen to serve as a defense counsel to Ntakirutimana in itself discredits him politically in your eyes, it should have discredited him _seven years ago_.
BTW, Salon.com, which has published hatchet jobs trying to discredit Clark, ANSWER, NION, etc. (e.g., <http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/06/21/clark/print.html>), is going down faster than any of its targets:
***** Associated Press Online February 17, 2003 Monday SECTION: FINANCIAL NEWS LENGTH: 258 words HEADLINE: Salon May Not Survive Beyond February DATELINE: SAN FRANCISCO
BODY: Online magazine publisher Salon Media Group Inc. warned that it may not survive beyond this month if it can't raise more money to pay its rent and other bills.
The San Francisco-based company painted a grim financial picture on Friday in a quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Things are so bad, Salon said, it stopped paying rent for its San Francisco headquarters in December, prompting the landlord to issue a Jan. 29 demand for a $200,000 payment.
To raise money, the company said it may sell its rights to $5.6 million worth of advertising on a Cablevision Systems Corp. subsidiary for as little as $1 million.
Friday's was the latest in a series of dire projections made by Salon. The company warned late last year it might go out of business, but then raised enough money to stay alive temporarily. Salon's troubles caused its stock to be delisted from the Nasdaq Stock Market in November.
Although its news coverage and commentary have attracted a loyal audience, Salon hasn't been able to make money. The company said it lost another $1.2 million during the final three months of 2002, bringing its cumulative deficit to $81 million.
Unable to drum up enough advertising to pay the bills, Salon started charging subscriptions to read some of its stories in 2001. The company began charging fees for all its once-free content late last month as part of its last-ditch survival effort. At of Dec. 31, Salon's site had 47,300 subscribers.
On The Net: http://www.salon.com
LOAD-DATE: February 18, 2003 ***** -- Yoshie
* Calendar of Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://solidarity.igc.org/>