I know this is a downer and alot to read, but please take the time. I know this message board has alot of caring and smart people. So if you have the time please email your elected officals. We cant let another rawanda happen. Thanks.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/23/opini ... of.html?hp

The Secret Genocide Archive
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

hotos don't normally appear on this page. But it's time for all of us to look squarely at the victims of our indifference.

These are just four photos in a secret archive of thousands of photos and reports that document the genocide under way in Darfur. The materials were gathered by African Union monitors, who are just about the only people able to travel widely in that part of Sudan.

This African Union archive is classified, but it was shared with me by someone who believes that Americans will be stirred if they can see the consequences of their complacency.

The photo at the upper left was taken in the village of Hamada on Jan. 15, right after a Sudanese government-backed militia, the janjaweed, attacked it and killed 107 people. One of them was this little boy. I'm not showing the photo of his older brother, about 5 years old, who lay beside him because the brother had been beaten so badly that nothing was left of his face. And alongside the two boys was the corpse of their mother.

The photo to the right shows the corpse of a man with an injured leg who was apparently unable to run away when the janjaweed militia attacked.

At the lower left is a man who fled barefoot and almost made it to this bush before he was shot dead.

Last is the skeleton of a man or woman whose wrists are still bound. The attackers pulled the person's clothes down to the knees, presumably so the victim could be sexually abused before being killed. If the victim was a man, he was probably castrated; if a woman, she was probably raped.

There are thousands more of these photos. Many of them show attacks on children and are too horrific for a newspaper.

One wrenching photo in the archive shows the manacled hands of a teenager from the girls' school in Suleia who was burned alive. It's been common for the Sudanese militias to gang-rape teenage girls and then mutilate or kill them.

Another photo shows the body of a young girl, perhaps 10 years old, staring up from the ground where she was killed. Still another shows a man who was castrated and shot in the head.

This archive, including scores of reports by the monitors on the scene, underscores that this slaughter is waged by and with the support of the Sudanese government as it tries to clear the area of non-Arabs. Many of the photos show men in Sudanese Army uniforms pillaging and burning African villages. I hope the African Union will open its archive to demonstrate publicly just what is going on in Darfur.

The archive also includes an extraordinary document seized from a janjaweed official that apparently outlines genocidal policies. Dated last August, the document calls for the "execution of all directives from the president of the republic" and is directed to regional commanders and security officials.

"Change the demography of Darfur and make it void of African tribes," the document urges. It encourages "killing, burning villages and farms, terrorizing people, confiscating property from members of African tribes and forcing them from Darfur."

It's worth being skeptical of any document because forgeries are possible. But the African Union believes this document to be authentic. I also consulted a variety of experts on Sudan and shared it with some of them, and the consensus was that it appears to be real.

Certainly there's no doubt about the slaughter, although the numbers are fuzzy. A figure of 70,000 is sometimes stated as an estimated death toll, but that is simply a U.N. estimate for the deaths in one seven-month period from nonviolent causes. It's hard to know the total mortality over two years of genocide, partly because the Sudanese government is blocking a U.N. team from going to Darfur and making such an estimate. But independent estimates exceed 220,000 - and the number is rising by about 10,000 per month.

So what can stop this genocide? At one level the answer is technical: sanctions against Sudan, a no-fly zone, a freeze of Sudanese officials' assets, prosecution of the killers by the International Criminal Court, a team effort by African and Arab countries to pressure Sudan, and an international force of African troops with financing and logistical support from the West.

But that's the narrow answer. What will really stop this genocide is indignation. Senator Paul Simon, who died in 2003, said after the Rwandan genocide, "If every member of the House and Senate had received 100 letters from people back home saying we have to do something about Rwanda, when the crisis was first developing, then I think the response would have been different."

The same is true this time. Web sites like http://www.darfurgenocide.org and http://www.savedarfur.org are trying to galvanize Americans, but the response has been pathetic.

I'm sorry for inflicting these horrific photos on you. But the real obscenity isn't in printing pictures of dead babies - it's in our passivity, which allows these people to be slaughtered.

During past genocides against Armenians, Jews and Cambodians, it was possible to claim that we didn't fully know what was going on. This time, President Bush, Congress and the European Parliament have already declared genocide to be under way. And we have photos.

This time, we have no excuse.

Already read it on the NYT website. Kristof rules.

So... we can use decade old reports of Kurds being gassed to justify the invasion of Iraq, but we aren't gonna do diddly when genocide is currently happening in yet another African country. Rwanda anyone? "Never again" for the nth time?

Exactly the argument many people have been making against the supposed "humanitarian liberation" that is the current basis for invasion that the administration is giving us. There are at least a handful (if not more) of other nations that could fall into this category, many within Africa. Shouldn't we be invading and disposing of genocidal maniacs there as well?

On topic....I've been trying to stay up to date with the state of affairs Sudan, but I tell ya, sometimes it gets too depressing to keep reading every day.

Iraq was unique in that it was not only a humanitarian disaster on a broad scale, but Saddam also posed a threat to the US. On top of that, he was a large sponsor to other forms of terrorism, in particular, Palestinian terrorist groups, as well as broader terrorist groups such as Ansar al Islam.

The problems in Darfur are indeed tragic. But the Sudanese government itself does not pose a direct threat to America. It can't control its own country let alone develop a substantial threat to America.

And who's to say we're not doing anything in Darfur, or won't in the future? I'll tell you right now, I am not far from Darfur at all.

It's a logistics problem at this point. If you all want to join the service, bulk up the troop numbers, be my guest and go to Darfur...

You've gotta be kidding. Pleaes explain how Saddam was a threat to the U.S? I don't think I've heard you attempt to justify this war. I hope we don't hear "KAY REPORT! DUH" from you.

this just goes to prove that the US only intervenes when there is something in it for us... "humanitarian disaster on a broad scale" happens all over the world and to say it is the reason that we take action is a fucking joke... we'd be fighting wars everywhere if that was the case... ive lost all faith

im not even going to address the fact that iraq was a threat to us... please

and be a pawn for a bunch of corrupt motherfuckers?... no thanks

"During past genocides against Armenians, Jews and Cambodians, it was possible to claim that we didn't fully know what was going on. This time, President Bush, Congress and the European Parliament have already declared genocide to be under way. And we have photos.

This time, we have no excuse. "


word.

I mean that sums it up. It's shocking to me how we can just turn our backs on people because they supposedly have nothing to offer us. no oil. no money. no aid in time of war...

so what? so we should just leave them be? I dont know how many of you caught the nightline special--it was in two parts, first Don Cheadle went to Sudan, and then Ted Koppel (or whoever does nightline) interviewed Paul Rusesebagina and Gen. Dullaire--it was really interesting. The general said that he was recently discussing the situation in Sudan and he said that he thought 40,000 troops would be needed to at least keep the situation in check.
And they were just abashed at the suggestion. "40,000...for Africa?" I think was the exact quote.

it's such a shame.

How was Saddam a threat to us? I dunno IEB, how was the Taliban a threat to us?

Let's see. Why would the US intervene in a humanitarian disaster where we get nothing out of it, when we can intervene in an equally disasterous situation, and help ourselves out.

Oh yeah, that makes sense. GO HELP THOSE PEOPLE, BUT NOT THOSE PEOPLE BECAUSE YOU'LL GET SOMETHING OUT OF IT AND LOOK CHEAP AND PHONY!

And any how, that line is just bullshit. I mean, I'm in a country that does almost absolutely nothing for the United States. Nothing. There is absolutely nothing in the country I'm in. Just dirt and camels. Hey, why don't you guys protest my removal from this country. You can put up facy signs that say, "NO WAR FOR CAMELS!" Why am I here? What purpose do I serve the US being in this third world country.

The funny thing is. If we did go into all of these third world hell holes to appease you turds, in order to appear unselfish, you'd alllllllllllll just turn around and say we were an "occupying force", and treading all over their freedom and independence.

Not hard to see through you people.

Does anyone else find it odd that this country and dozens of others poured billions into Tsunami relief but sit back and do very little about this and other nations in similar situations?

Why do natural disasters generate so much sympathy and man made disasters generate a shrug?

With the big spending the Chinese have been dumping on their military, it's about time their massive forces were deployed in international affairs, especially in tragedies such as this one.

I'm with you all the way on this one.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/arc ... the_a.html

I would have rather they done nothing. Seriously. Fucking evangelical jerkoffs.

You've got to be fucking kidding me. Why don't we send them birthday cards, just to go overboard?

"Sorry for your recent genocidal-like occurences. If you think fondly of lost loved ones and limbs they will always be with us until we rejoin them in the Kingdom of God. Greatest sympathies, Oregon."

I never know how to feel about countries in crisis like this.

I edited a thesis for a man who was trying to mount a political career in Nigeria, and his premise was that the US needed to go in and clean up the corrupt "democracy" that is currently in place.

At the time, the war in Iraq was getting really ugly, and my only thought was, "DUDE, you do NOT want the US going in there to 'help'.".

What about the UN? Or is humanitarian aid/rescue not part of their "missions statement"?

U.S. TV Networks Largely Ignoring Genocide in Darfur, Covering Michael Jackson, Martha Stewart Instead
Abid Aslam, OneWorld US
July 15, 2005

WASHINGTON, D.C., Jul 15 (OneWorld) - Anti-genocide activists have launched a new campaign to increase U.S. television coverage of mass killings in Darfur, Sudan--described by the United Nations as the world's worst humanitarian crisis.

''Genocide is the ultimate crime against humanity and a government-backed genocide is unfolding in the Darfur region of the Sudan. As the horror in Darfur continues, our major television news networks are largely missing in action,'' said organizers of the Be A Witness Campaign.

The campaign--run by the American Progress Action Fund and the Genocide Intervention Fund--asks Americans to send a message to networks to ''be a witness'' to what the U.S. government has termed genocide in Darfur.

Campaigners said they hoped increased coverage would move voters to press elected officials to take decisive action to stop the fighting between rebels and government-backed militias and to protect civilians targeted by both sides for murder and rape.

''Television has told us stories of important human brutality before, and Americans have responded by demanding action from our elected representatives,'' the campaign said, citing examples including the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and 1960s and the 1980s Ethiopian famine.

The vast majority of Americans continue to rely overwhelmingly on broadcast and cable television as their primary source of information, said campaigners, citing findings from the private Pew Research Center for People and the Press.

Major U.S. networks, however, have largely ignored the Darfur crisis in what the American Journalism Review has described as an ''eerie echo'' of media neglect of the Rwandan genocide of 1994.

''During June 2005, CNN, FOX News, NBC/MSNBC, ABC, and CBS ran 50 times as many stories about Michael Jackson and 12 times as many stories about Tom Cruise as they did about the genocide in Darfur,'' the campaign said, citing the private Tyndall Report, which monitors broadcast media.

Last year, the ABC, CBS, and NBC network nightly newscasts aired a total of only 26 minutes on genocide and fighting in Sudan, the Tyndall Report found. ABC devoted 18 minutes to Darfur coverage, NBC five and CBS only three. By contrast, lifestyle doyenne Martha Stewart's woes received 130 minutes of nightly news coverage.

''Stated differently, only about one in every 950 minutes of news coverage in 2004 covered the genocide in Sudan,'' campaigners said.

The American Journalism Review, in a March 2005 assessment, credited the Washington Post and the New York Times with leading ''persistent, on-the-ground coverage'' of the Darfur crisis.

But the industry magazine said newspapers on the whole appeared to do little better than TV.

''Many of the stories on Sudan published in the nation's newspapers tended to be 500 words or less, giving short shrift to a complex conflict with powerful ethnic, religious and economic factors. Many accounts lacked historical context or perspective, often oversimplifying the bloodshed in Darfur. And few of them appeared on the front page,'' said Sherry Ricchiardi, a senior writer at the Review.

''Only a handful of newspapers have sent their own correspondents to the scene. Foreign desks more often turn to wire service briefs or an occasional piece by a stringer,'' Ricchiardi said.

''Journalists and critics cite a number of factors for the scant coverage of such a harrowing and significant story, including the difficulty of gaining access to Darfur, budget constraints, the war in Iraq and a presumed lack of interest in Africa,'' she added.

Violence in Darfur, now in its third year, has killed as many as 400,000 people and forced some 2.5 million to flee their homes and villages, according to Africa Action, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group that began sounding the alarm in 2000 over what it saw as an impending crisis in the resource-rich but mostly barren region.

The death toll will exceed one million people by the end of the year, the organization warned, unless bold steps are taken to rein in the conflict between rebel groups of African descent and Arab militias that the regime in Khartoum stands accused of arming and abetting.

The fighting started over rebels' claims that the government had deliberately neglected the region, starving it of basic services and development money. It has been compounded by competition for control of local oil, gas, and mineral resources.

And even as government and rebel forces implement a peace process in the country's South, Khartoum appears to be girding for new violence in eastern Sudan, where local populations also are rebelling against the government, according to Africa Action.

African peacekeepers have impressed international observers with their efforts in Darfur but they remain too few and too skimpily supported to protect civilians and restore order. Chief among their constraints, they lack a political mandate to intervene in fighting to protect civilians, said Ann-Louise Colgan, Africa Action's director of policy analysis.


--xx--



Thoughts?

My thought:
When 5 corporations own 95% of the broadcast and print news, its no surprise really....it's all about selling products, not about informing the masses. Freedom of speech is dead in a country where one is easily locked out of all forums by paid advertisers doing the "circuit" to promote themselves and/or their products (be it the latest book about a president or the latest tv show movie remake). It's all crap. Thank god for BBC World News, the only agency I've ever seen that simply REPORTS THE WORLD NEWS OF THE DAY in a concise and direct manner.

c-

My thoughts. When the victims are African tribespeople, networks think that the American people won't care. They might be right.