Although I do believe that ICC is a politicized court, no matter to judge it under logic and common sense.
Let us imagine that the general prosecutor of International Criminal Court ICC talking to his assistants about a case, any case, he wants to motivate and activate them to work hard in order to collect more evidences. He already has succeeded in his first preferable step, the arrest warrant, and then he said to his assistants: "I do not want them to be released at all; I want them all to have life imprisonment or at least 15-20 years."
Is there any evidence in this statement can prove that the general prosecutor abetted his assistants to fabricate false evidences to put innocent people in jail? Or we can just say that he wants to fulfill his mission perfectly?
I know that Mr. Ocambo's image in Sudan now just like Beelzebub (the Arch Devil), surrounded with his devils, but this does not change the rule; No accusations without proofs.
Mr. Ocambo has no evidences against the president of Sudan, Omar Al-Basheer. However, he has been repeating that Al-Basheer said to his soldiers: "I do not want any injured people or war prisoners; I want you to defeat them completely"
In another statement Ocambo added (I want burnt land). In this point specifically Ocambo is a liar, or may be there is mistranslation in his statements, I don't know. Surly, Al-Basheer didn't say that at all. Moreover, we have no expression like this in spoken Arabic in Sudan, simply, people do not use it.
No need to talk about other claims presented by Ocambo witnesses, in a previous trial in another case they changed their testimonies!
Al-Basheer, according to his responsibility as a leader and commander he fought against bloody mutiny and rebel groups. They killed Sudanese soldiers, civilians, children, and women. Do you expect Al-Basheer is going to order his soldiers to kiss them and give them flowers and chocolate?
By common sense Al-Basheer was talking about a heavy blow against militias and rebel groups, against red-handed criminals. He ordered a heavy blow not more than that.
Using the same logic, we can get many evidences to prove that all the case is a big lie; we can do that without any thing but the said statements.
Really, a lie travels around the world while truth is put on her boot.
Do we have another example? Yes we have:
The manager of XYZ Company for cars gathered his employees after a workshop about a new strategy to win the market, the company has already topped the list of cars companies, but they want more success! He said: "I don't want people to drive any other cars, I don't want to see more BMW or VW or TOYOTA moving in our streets"
Under Ocambo's intelligent logic this manager is a criminal, he is an abettor! He wants to destroy other companies, he wants to burn their cars in the streets, and he wants to use illegal means to stop their production!
I invite Mr. Ocambo to have some lessons in philosophy in our universities in Sudan; Africa University, University of Khartoum, Juba University, Neyala University , Omdorman University, Islamic Institute for Translation and others.
We have 28 universities in Sudan ; we have good teachers for him if he is a good student.
I say that because I am confident that any Sudanese student can understand this case better than him.
Mr. Beelzebub, his basic point against the president Omar Al-Basheer is nonsense, we proved this and we will continue, but before that we have to focus on some ideas, and it seems to be philosophical.
There is a major difference between the (legality / illegality) of the results and the (legality / illegality) of the means you use them in order to achieve the results.
Al-Basheer as a leader and a commander gave an order of (a heavy strike) to destroy rebel groups and red handed criminals, but Ocambo tries to fabricate a new philosophy.
He wants to say if the targeted results are killing and destroying enemies, it means that the army is going to kill war prisoners and injured soldiers to accomplish his mission.
Surly no, the army can achieve this result using legal means, simply, to practice only one heavy blow Aagainst the mutineers in a specific area then move to another and so on , this is considered as a kind of "lawful killing"!
Ocambo needs this lesson to know the difference between Means and Results.
More examples:
An officer gave an order to his team, a number of policemen surrounding a building in Hague – Holland (as example), there is a group of terrorists, they have got bombs and explosive belts, if you let them to go outside they will use it, even they are injured or arrested.
The order is: "destroy the building over their heads, kill them all, I do not want you to arrest any one of them alive, do you want to arrest bombs and explosive belts"
Does this order mean that the officer does not believe in law and civil rights for the accused?
Now we want to finish the argument, but let us ask another question: Do you think that Mr. Beelzebub is so stupid that he doesn't know there is not any real evidence against the president, Omar Al-Basheer?
I don't think so! He knows that very well, but it is a politicized court, and he is just a tool.
Let us imagine that the general prosecutor of International Criminal Court ICC talking to his assistants about a case, any case, he wants to motivate and activate them to work hard in order to collect more evidences. He already has succeeded in his first preferable step, the arrest warrant, and then he said to his assistants: "I do not want them to be released at all; I want them all to have life imprisonment or at least 15-20 years."
Is there any evidence in this statement can prove that the general prosecutor abetted his assistants to fabricate false evidences to put innocent people in jail? Or we can just say that he wants to fulfill his mission perfectly?
I know that Mr. Ocambo's image in Sudan now just like Beelzebub (the Arch Devil), surrounded with his devils, but this does not change the rule; No accusations without proofs.
Mr. Ocambo has no evidences against the president of Sudan, Omar Al-Basheer. However, he has been repeating that Al-Basheer said to his soldiers: "I do not want any injured people or war prisoners; I want you to defeat them completely"
In another statement Ocambo added (I want burnt land). In this point specifically Ocambo is a liar, or may be there is mistranslation in his statements, I don't know. Surly, Al-Basheer didn't say that at all. Moreover, we have no expression like this in spoken Arabic in Sudan, simply, people do not use it.
No need to talk about other claims presented by Ocambo witnesses, in a previous trial in another case they changed their testimonies!
Al-Basheer, according to his responsibility as a leader and commander he fought against bloody mutiny and rebel groups. They killed Sudanese soldiers, civilians, children, and women. Do you expect Al-Basheer is going to order his soldiers to kiss them and give them flowers and chocolate?
By common sense Al-Basheer was talking about a heavy blow against militias and rebel groups, against red-handed criminals. He ordered a heavy blow not more than that.
Using the same logic, we can get many evidences to prove that all the case is a big lie; we can do that without any thing but the said statements.
Really, a lie travels around the world while truth is put on her boot.
Do we have another example? Yes we have:
The manager of XYZ Company for cars gathered his employees after a workshop about a new strategy to win the market, the company has already topped the list of cars companies, but they want more success! He said: "I don't want people to drive any other cars, I don't want to see more BMW or VW or TOYOTA moving in our streets"
Under Ocambo's intelligent logic this manager is a criminal, he is an abettor! He wants to destroy other companies, he wants to burn their cars in the streets, and he wants to use illegal means to stop their production!
I invite Mr. Ocambo to have some lessons in philosophy in our universities in Sudan; Africa University, University of Khartoum, Juba University, Neyala University , Omdorman University, Islamic Institute for Translation and others.
We have 28 universities in Sudan ; we have good teachers for him if he is a good student.
I say that because I am confident that any Sudanese student can understand this case better than him.
Mr. Beelzebub, his basic point against the president Omar Al-Basheer is nonsense, we proved this and we will continue, but before that we have to focus on some ideas, and it seems to be philosophical.
There is a major difference between the (legality / illegality) of the results and the (legality / illegality) of the means you use them in order to achieve the results.
Al-Basheer as a leader and a commander gave an order of (a heavy strike) to destroy rebel groups and red handed criminals, but Ocambo tries to fabricate a new philosophy.
He wants to say if the targeted results are killing and destroying enemies, it means that the army is going to kill war prisoners and injured soldiers to accomplish his mission.
Surly no, the army can achieve this result using legal means, simply, to practice only one heavy blow Aagainst the mutineers in a specific area then move to another and so on , this is considered as a kind of "lawful killing"!
Ocambo needs this lesson to know the difference between Means and Results.
More examples:
An officer gave an order to his team, a number of policemen surrounding a building in Hague – Holland (as example), there is a group of terrorists, they have got bombs and explosive belts, if you let them to go outside they will use it, even they are injured or arrested.
The order is: "destroy the building over their heads, kill them all, I do not want you to arrest any one of them alive, do you want to arrest bombs and explosive belts"
Does this order mean that the officer does not believe in law and civil rights for the accused?
Now we want to finish the argument, but let us ask another question: Do you think that Mr. Beelzebub is so stupid that he doesn't know there is not any real evidence against the president, Omar Al-Basheer?
I don't think so! He knows that very well, but it is a politicized court, and he is just a tool.
