PDA

View Full Version : 5 Members of Congress arrested at Darfur protest


banyon
04-28-2006, 03:34 PM
Congress members arrested at Darfur protest
http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2006/04/28/jacksonlee.jpg
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, is led away in handcuffs after being arrested outside the embassy of Sudan. She joined other congressmen and protesters in a demonstration calling on the Sudanese government to accept a U.N. peacekeeping force in Darfur and allow humanitarian relief organizations full access to the area.


WASHINGTON (AP) — Five Congress members were willingly arrested and led away from the Sudanese Embassy in plastic handcuffs Friday in protest of the Sudanese government's role in atrocities in the Darfur region.
"The slaughter of the people of Darfur must end," Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., a Holocaust survivor who founded the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, said from the embassy steps before his arrest.

Four other Democratic Congress members — James McGovern and John Olver of Massachusetts, Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas and Jim Moran of Virginia — were among 11 protesters arrested on charges of disorderly conduct and unlawful assembly, a misdemeanor subject to a fine.

"We must hold the Sudanese government accountable for the attacks they have supported on their own citizens in Darfur," Olver said.

Dozens of demonstrators carried signs, some reading "Stop the slaughter" and "Women of Darfur suffer multiple gang rapes," in front of the embassy Friday morning.

The protesters cheered as the Congress members and others were cuffed, hands behind their backs, with plastic ties and quietly led to a white police van by U.S. Secret Service uniformed officers.

The arrests were expected. Lantos' office issued a news release about them in advance.

The protesters called on the Sudanese government to accept a U.N. peacekeeping force in Darfur and allow humanitarian relief organizations full access to victims. The three-year-old conflict between rebels and government-backed militias has left at least 180,000 people dead, mostly from war-related hunger and disease, and some 2 million homeless.

President Bush on Friday renewed his call for a stronger international presence in Darfur.

"The message to the Sudanese government is: We're very serious about getting this problem solved," Bush said at the White House. "We don't like it when we see women raped and brutalized. And we expect there to be a full effort by the government to protect human life and human condition."

The United States has authorized more than $300 million for victims of the violence and to support peace talks.

Rallies against the violence in Darfur are planned in more than a dozen U.S. cities this weekend, including on Washington's National Mall on Sunday.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-28-democratsarrested_x.htm?csp=34

HC_Chief
04-28-2006, 03:41 PM
Only 5? I would hope more of our elected officials would find the situation in Sudan absolutely appalling.

Why were they arrested? Did they not file for a permit? They should know the law.

Cave Johnson
04-28-2006, 03:42 PM
Disorderly conduct and unlawful assembly.

Good to see at least 1/100ths of Congress cares about atrocities in a country without oil reserves.

memyselfI
04-28-2006, 03:46 PM
Only 5? I would hope more of our elected officials would find the situation in Sudan absolutely appalling.

Why were they arrested? Did they not file for a permit? They should know the law.

That is five more congresspeople than have been arrested for protesting the absolutely appalling situation in Iraq. :harumph:

HC_Chief
04-28-2006, 03:47 PM
If they gave a shit about fighting TERRORISM they would be all over the Sudan situation!!

Unfortunately I have to agree.... if Sudan were sitting on a lake of oil, we would have acted there long ago (and hundreds of thousands of people probably would have been spared).

The UN needs to get involved. They've sat on their thumbs for far too long. FFS the Sec Gen is from Ghana. EVERYONE knows genocide is occurring.

Radar Chief
04-28-2006, 03:52 PM
That is five more congresspeople than have been arrested for protesting the absolutely appalling situation in Iraq. :harumph:

:LOL: Right, cause the situations are, like, so similar.

jiveturkey
04-28-2006, 03:53 PM
Good for them.

It's good to see this situation getting some press.

memyselfI
04-28-2006, 03:54 PM
:LOL: Right, cause the situations are, like, so similar.

Uh, if you had passed 6th grade social studies you'd see a very common link in both situations...

Radar Chief
04-28-2006, 03:57 PM
Uh, if you had passed 6th grade social studies you'd see a very common link in both situations...

Oh, I see a very common link, your ignorance.
Didn’t even need what you’d call a “fancy edumacation” to figure that one out. ;)

HC_Chief
04-28-2006, 03:58 PM
:LOL: Right, cause the situations are, like, so similar.


lol we need to add that smiley

memyselfI
04-28-2006, 04:01 PM
Oh, I see a very common link, your ignorance.
Didn’t even need what you’d call a “fancy edumacation” to figure that one out. ;)

Yeah, right. ROFL

patteeu
04-28-2006, 04:10 PM
lol we need to add that smiley

Try ";LOL;" but replace the semicolons with colons.

HC_Chief
04-28-2006, 04:14 PM
Try ";LOL;" but replace the semicolons with colons.

lol... it is somewhat ironic that you referred to the wrong smiley; as in "you nutball, I'm referring to the smiley attached in the post - not the one USED in said post" :D

Baby Lee
04-28-2006, 04:14 PM
Somebody stayed up and watched ER last night.

So much for being TIC.

That said, this goes beyond not having a reservoir of oil under their feet. The level of depredation and squalor, with no resources to spark recovery, make this a magnitude of great value harder situation to rectify.

If Iraq was the 'you break, you buy' policy in a Pottery Barn, Sub-Saharan Africa is 'you break, you buy' in the CDC's infectious diseases wing, with the containment personnel on vacation and the HVAC running on high.

If we were to intervene in Darfur, and we were able to squelch the genocide, what then? Short of becoming a colonizing force?

Iraq has it's sectarian strife, but at least they've had a TASTE of the 20th century, and at least they have oil to drive them to some day play nice. What is going to drive the Sudan to coalesce for an instant longer than our boots are on the ground?

HC_Chief
04-28-2006, 04:21 PM
Somebody stayed up and watched ER last night.

So much for being TIC.

That said, this goes beyond not having a reservoir of oil under their feet. The level of depredation and squalor, with no resources to spark recovery, make this a magnitude of great value harder situation to rectify.

If Iraq was the 'you break, you buy' policy in a Pottery Barn, Sub-Saharan Africa is 'you break, you buy' in the CDC's infectious diseases wing, with the containment personnel on vacation and the HVAC running on high.

If we were to intervene in Darfur, and we were able to squelch the genocide, what then? Short of becoming a colonizing force?

Iraq has it's sectarian strife, but at least they've had a TASTE of the 20th century, and at least they have oil to drive them to some day play nice. What is going to drive the Sudan to coalesce for an instant longer than our boots are on the ground?

Excellent post!

Iraq & Sudan are dissimilar situations; invading Iraq was WAR. I am not for war on Sudan unless, of course, we find them to be willing harborers of AQ/other terrorist swine. We already know that AQ had a presence in Sudan; we know OBL and Zarqawi (may they both roast in hell) recently mentioned Sudan. The Sudanese government however, has tried very hard to stay out of our crosshairs. If we find them complicit, as we did the Taliban, then we smash them.

Since Sudan does not appear to be willing harborers of terrorist scum, I believe the UNITED NATIONS should be the ones to act in this situation. It is high time they do <i>something</i> (other than waste our time & money). Their inaction in this situation is inexcusable.

patteeu
04-28-2006, 04:24 PM
lol... it is somewhat ironic that you referred to the wrong smiley; as in "you nutball, I'm referring to the smiley attached in the post - not the one USED in said post" :D

Doh. :banghead:

Radar Chief
04-28-2006, 04:28 PM
Doh. :banghead:

Yea, this is the one he meant, though I think the second one fits Denise better.

jiveturkey
04-28-2006, 04:49 PM
Since Sudan does not appear to be willing harborers of terrorist scum, I believe the UNITED NATIONS should be the ones to act in this situation. It is high time they do <i>something</i> (other than waste our time & money). Their inaction in this situation is inexcusable.This is an excellent job for the UN. I certainly hope that we wouldn't head up an operation like this.

CHIEF4EVER
04-28-2006, 04:54 PM
This is an excellent job for the UN. I certainly hope that we wouldn't head up an operation like this.

And I certainly hope that we won't have ANYTHING to do with that loser azz organization....EVER AGAIN.

memyselfI
04-28-2006, 04:56 PM
Excellent post!

Iraq & Sudan are dissimilar situations; invading Iraq was WAR. I am not for war on Sudan unless, of course, we find them to be willing harborers of AQ/other terrorist swine. We already know that AQ had a presence in Sudan; we know OBL and Zarqawi (may they both roast in hell) recently mentioned Sudan. The Sudanese government however, has tried very hard to stay out of our crosshairs. If we find them complicit, as we did the Taliban, then we smash them.

Since Sudan does not appear to be willing harborers of terrorist scum, I believe the UNITED NATIONS should be the ones to act in this situation. It is high time they do <i>something</i> (other than waste our time & money). Their inaction in this situation is inexcusable.

Sudan has a population of 41,236,378 people (07/06 est. per CIA) of which 70% are SUNNI MUSLIM. The perceived mistreatment of Muslims, and in particular Sunnis when it comes to Sudan, has the potential to spread fanatical Islam across much of Africa.

Yes, there is a link between Sudan and Iraq. And yes, just as the State Department reported that Iraq is now a motiviational breeding ground for Islamic terrorists (see report issued today) so too does a similiar fate lie possible in Sudan and other parts of Africa.


http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr140.html


http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/images/sr140_map_africa_muslim_population_2005_sm.gif

jAZ
04-28-2006, 06:44 PM
Sudan has a population of 41,236,378 people (07/06 est. per CIA) of which 70% are SUNNI MUSLIM. The perceived mistreatment of Muslims, and in particular Sunnis when it comes to Sudan, has the potential to spread fanatical Islam across much of Africa.

Yes, there is a link between Sudan and Iraq. And yes, just as the State Department reported that Iraq is now a motiviational breeding ground for Islamic terrorists (see report issued today) so too does a similiar fate lie possible in Sudan and other parts of Africa.
That's not exactly 6th grade stuff, but the point is well stated.

memyselfI
04-28-2006, 06:52 PM
That's not exactly 6th grade stuff, but the point is well stated.

Thank you. The 'link' that I was inferring was the Muslim population of both countries and not the geo-political/religious connection of the two. It is a hard thing to understand at 42....

no way at 11.

banyon
04-28-2006, 06:58 PM
Maybe we should launch a preemptive strike on them in case they have WMD's.

banyon
04-28-2006, 07:01 PM
seriously, though I don't think these Congress members would've been arrested under any other president even if they did violate an ordinance (with the exception of maybe Lincoln in the Civil War).

patteeu
04-28-2006, 07:23 PM
seriously, though I don't think these Congress members would've been arrested under any other president even if they did violate an ordinance (with the exception of maybe Lincoln in the Civil War).

Maybe so, but only because if we had a different president, these 5 wouldn't have tried to be arrested. I'm willing to bet these arrests were the design of the arrested not the president or his people.

banyon
04-28-2006, 10:16 PM
Maybe so, but only because if we had a different president, these 5 wouldn't have tried to be arrested. I'm willing to bet these arrests were the design of the arrested not the president or his people.

I appaud these Congresspeople.

Civil Disobedience in pursuit of higher ends is a time-honored and cherished tradition in our country.

Dave Lane
04-28-2006, 11:36 PM
Oh, I see a very common link, your ignorance.
Didn’t even need what you’d call a “fancy edumacation” to figure that one out. ;)


Hey 6th grade is not all that high flauten a education quit trying to rub it in! ROFL

Dave

Ugly Duck
04-28-2006, 11:54 PM
Thank you. The 'link' that I was inferring was the Muslim population of both countries and not the geo-political/religious connection of the two. Another link... we went from harboring terrorists & grave threat from WMDs to "freeing the Iraqi people" as our excuses for invading. That excuse, now valid enough for neocons, exists without question in Darfur. The Sudanese need to be freed at least as much as the Iraqi people did. To stand on principle, the neocons should invade Sudan and go on another nation-building exercise.

patteeu
04-29-2006, 10:51 AM
I appaud these Congresspeople.

Civil Disobedience in pursuit of higher ends is a time-honored and cherished tradition in our country.

Oh I agree with that. I don't necessarily agree with the cause these protestors were pursuing and I definitely don't agree that their arrest had anything to do with Bush or his people targeting them if that was the earlier implication.

patteeu
04-29-2006, 10:53 AM
Another link... we went from harboring terrorists & grave threat from WMDs to "freeing the Iraqi people" as our excuses for invading. That excuse, now valid enough for neocons, exists without question in Darfur. The Sudanese need to be freed at least as much as the Iraqi people did. To stand on principle, the neocons should invade Sudan and go on another nation-building exercise.

You and the rest of the liberals have no room to talk about standing on principle. Having said that, there is no reason to have a one-size fits all foreign policy. The reasons for invading Iraq were many and, taken all together, they were unique to Iraq. There is no other situation in the world that falls into the exact same category. Each situation is unique.

banyon
04-29-2006, 11:08 PM
You and the rest of the liberals have no room to talk about standing on principle. Having said that, there is no reason to have a one-size fits all foreign policy. The reasons for invading Iraq were many and, taken all together, they were unique to Iraq. There is no other situation in the world that falls into the exact same category. Each situation is unique.

A convenient line to apologize for Bush's ridiculous foreign policy.

memyselfI
04-30-2006, 05:25 PM
You and the rest of the liberals have no room to talk about standing on principle. Having said that, there is no reason to have a one-size fits all foreign policy. The reasons for invading Iraq were many and, taken all together, they were unique to Iraq. There is no other situation in the world that falls into the exact same category. Each situation is unique.

Why that sounds downright gray area, relative, and LIBERAL...

Too bad the WH had to get deep into a quagmire for you, and them, to realize your point.

patteeu
05-01-2006, 07:36 AM
Why that sounds downright gray area, relative, and LIBERAL...

Too bad the WH had to get deep into a quagmire for you, and them, to realize your point.

It's always been a myth that conservatives see things in terms of black and white and that liberals see nuance and I've pointed this out many times on this message board.

In fact, I've even pointed it out to you.

The US will look like Grade A hypocrits if on the one hand they are engaging war to 'bring democracy to the Middle East' and then on the other hand withdraw support of an democratically elected government because they don't approve of it.

They need place restrictions on the government allowing them to fail to cooperate and not work for peace BEFORE they withdraw or change any support going to the Palestinian people.

That's nonsense. Where is this sense of nuance that liberals (or nonconservatives if you don't embrace the "liberal" label) are supposed to be so good at? No one from the Bush camp ever said that any democracy is a good democracy as far as I'm aware.

BucEyedPea
05-01-2006, 08:10 AM
Leftists/progressive liberals believe their interventions are for good cause because they are motivated by kindness, benevolence, and all those other liberal internationalist virtues that make them such so much better people than NeoCons like Dick Cheney, Richard Perle and Bill Kristol.

President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condi Rice care about oil, money, Israel, and self-glorification -- in short capitalism. Progressives care about helping poor blacks, stopping genocide, and dispensing American treasure to the underprivileged but deserving peoples of the Third World because another's wealth makes others poor. Lol!

To me this merely shows that the foreign policy debate in this country is not about the policy – no one questions the wisdom and absolute necessity of global interventionism anymore – but about motivation.

All this international globaloney is a recipe for disaster.