Here's a sad little secret: Every time I write about Darfur in this space, traffic drops by at least a third. So here goes nothing.

A few months ago I asked a veteran news producer why television had devoted so little attention to such a significant humanitarian crisis. The producer cited budget constraints and added, "Plus, the villages aren't burning anymore." When they were burning, as Nick Kristof has so poignantly documented, the media hardly cared. NBC spent 5 minutes on Darfur coverage last year; CBS devoted 3 minutes. This June, the major network and 24/7 cable news stations aired 126 segments on Sudan, compared to 8,303 segments on the runaway bride, Michael Jackson and Tom Cruise.

The world says "never again" to genocide and then it happens again. Ethnic cleansing by the government-backed Janjaweed militia has killed nearly 180,000 native Darfurians, mostly black Africans populating an arid region the size of France. Almost two million people have been displaced from their homes (not counting four million more displaced by the 21-year, North-South civil war).

"Despite some stabilization of the security situation in Darfur, at a deeper level, living conditions are steadily deteriorating," Kofi Annan recently told the UN Security Council, warning of a "descent into lawlessness." 3.2 million people need humanitarian assistance; 1.9 million live in crowded refuge camps. Rampant looting, criminality and the targeting of aid workers hampers crucial relief efforts. The death three weeks ago of rebel leader John Garang threatens to tear the fragile peace process apart.

The international response to Darfur has been shameful. The Bush Administration declared the conflict "genocide" in September 2004, and then quietly lobbied against the bipartisan Darfur Accountability Act in Congress, which would assist African Union peacekeeping teams already on the ground, force new sanctions against the central government in Khartoum and refer war criminals to the International Criminal Court. Despite the Islamist government-sponsored killing, pillaging and rape, Khartoum remains a crucial ally in Washington's war on terror.

"Meanwhile, the commitments of the other countries to relief efforts have been less than stellar," writes Darfur expert Eric Reeves, a professor at Smith College. "The financial responses of Germany, France, Italy, Japan, and the oil-rich Arab countries have been scandalously laggard."

The black gold of oil may offer one explanation. Khartoum subsists on $1 million in oil revenues per day, "which the government funnels into arms--helicopters and bombers from Russia, tanks from Poland and China, missiles from Iran," journalist David Morse reports. "And so Darfurian villages have been burned to clear the way for drilling and pipelines." The canadian oil company Talisman has been charged with helping government forces blow up a church and kill religious leaders. Last June, after discovering additional reserves, the government signed oil deals with Chinese, Indian, British and Malaysian companies. US oil conglomerates are itching for a piece of the pie.

None of this makes lasting peace likely. The current African Union peacekeeping force is well-intentioned but undersized and under-equipped. Are NATO troops needed? It's a question the media ought to ask and the international community must answer.

Comments (71)

1. Thank you this, Mr. Berman. I have to confess this issue keeps falling off my radar screen, although it shouldn't. We can watch CNN all day and never hear of Darfur; they need to keep us up on the celebrity trial of the month or the missing blond teenager of the week, after all.

   In this piece we are again seeing how the world's thirst for oil feeds unmentionable evil. It isn't necessary. We could develop a sensible energy policy that develops alternate sources through renewable energy in order to wean ourselves of regimes like Saudi Arabia or Sudan. But that would cut into the profits of transnational corporations and then they would no longer be able to foot the bill for the careers of some of our crooked politicians. We mustn't have that.

   Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/24/2005 @ 11:20am

2. ARI, Thanks for this. And I understand your remark about traffic. That is the problem. Look at the world wide media frenzy on things like Abu Ghraib, and then genocide gets little coverage. Look at the millions of people worldwide who turned out before and during the war in Iraq to protest the war, but you never see such demostrations regarding the Sudan or other areas of the world where there is genocide or ethnic cleansing occuring. Where is the United Nations? Where is France? We are accused of being bullies -- well, why are not other nations taking the lead? Why does it have to be NATO if the UN is to be an effective organization. Kofi Annan failed to save Rwanda and he is failing again regarding the Sudan.

   I often email national anti-war organizations like A.N.S.W.E.R. asking them when is the demonstration to protest genocide in the Sudan, and they ignore me or send me replies such as "We will let you know." If only this could be spinned to be Bush's fault would it get the attention of the world-wide commmunity of Leftists and progressives.

   You are right about the mainstream media. The prime time cable news shows focus every night for hour on end on Aruba, and rarely talk about the Sudan.

   Posted by RonS at 08/24/2005 @ 12:02pm

3. Ari,

   Thank you for writing about Darfur.

   Albeit an important topic; it is very difficult for me to focus on other people's troubles, serious as they are, when American troops are dying in a useless and God-forsaken war created by a God-forsaken and megalomaniac president. Consequently, I will submit very few posts to this blog.

   Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/24/2005 @ 12:14pm

4. Terrible of course that Dharfur is not being addressed.

   Kudos also to Kristof; though I know he has angered a lot of the official democrat and self-assumed "left" punditocracy, I believe he has in general done so for good reasons, his support for a return to the use of DDT notwithstanding.

   Kristof is a fine, fine journalist, probably the best the NYT has on its now truly lamentable editorial/op-ed page, and his work is excellent.

   Now, back to Dharfur: if only the US had military available to intervene under a UN flag, as part of a multinational coalition, and help bring an end to the activities of the Khartoum regime and its Janjaweed militias as far as genocide is concerned.

   For that matter, if only the Noble Europeans would provide sufficient armed forces to a UN effort to accomplish same.

   Genocide will not be stopped by anything but boots on the ground. My personal, less informed speculation is that the Khartoum regime would stop its genocide under serious threat of international intervention or, ultimately, with a UN police force comprised of a serious and large military presence on the ground in Sudan. I do not believe that the Khartoum regime would let a true war between itself and foreign western troops occur.

   Posted by Zero at 08/24/2005 @ 12:38pm

5. ORAIBI1952 God has not forsaken the troops, nor the cause for which it was launched, "to remove a brutal dictator" and WMD, yeah I know we didnt find them.

   Despite the violence there, the myriad of accomplihsments are considerable. It doesnt make the HEADLINES of the day.

   As one CNN reporter told me one time because it "doesnt make good copy" In the Long term the result will have been well worth it. I feel very proud of my fellow Soldiers and Marines and what they have done their, and rest assured the overwhelmingly majority of them do as well.

   Posted by CPT at 08/24/2005 @ 12:41pm

6. Rons: perhaps if some pictures and video of what constitutes genocide were to hit the American airwaves, the result would be an impetus on the part of the American and western national government to respond aggressively to stop the genocide?

   We Americans are remote from this kind of violence. Our mass media, in particular, television, is hugely sanitized of images of real violence and this one of the reasons violence that should be stopped goes unchecked for so long.

   Placing "right" and "left" aside, don't you think it would help get the issue more "traffic" if Joe and Jane Average were greeted with a six o'clock news broadcast where Tom Cruise was pre-empted by images of burning bodies, screaming children, raped and mutilated women, etc.? In particular, the janjaweed tendency to crucify their victims and set the crucifixes alight as a form of terror against the survivors would probably impact the American awareness deeply, if only the average American had the evening chicken-and-potatoes interrupted.

   Posted by Zero at 08/24/2005 @ 12:43pm

7. Zero, I agree with your 12:43 am post one hundred percent.

   Posted by RonS at 08/24/2005 @ 1:05pm

8. plus, the villages aren't burning anymore Reminds me of Dummy Rummy's response as to why we should attack Iraq instead of focusing on Afghanistan - There aren't any good targets there (in Afghanistan). In response to Zero's 12:43 post, please check out beawitness.org. they are trying to force the media to cover these events by shaming them. They have a very powerful TV ad. which all the major networks and CNN refuse to air. Please check them out and donate if you can.

   Posted by carpenters at 08/24/2005 @ 1:33pm

9. oops. Italics should have stopped after rummy quote.

   Posted by carpenters at 08/24/2005 @ 1:35pm

10. Yes, Darfur is important.

    It is too bad that the UN cannot scrape together the will or the troops to intervene (even if their peacekeepers are known for raping locals). It is too bad that France, Germany, China, and Russia don't care enough to do anything about it.

    As usual, unless the US does something, nothing will happen.

    Posted by kmg4 at 08/24/2005 @ 2:04pm

11. Darfur is just too low on the priority list to cause enough influential Americans, or just enough of the American public, to be upset. Besides, we all have finite resources and limited time to allocate those resources. The same can be said about our government. While I don't always agree with our government's actions, I don't see how we can lead the way to help the Darfurians while still entrenched in Iraq and Afhghanistan. If that was our intention, would the world follow our lead?

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/24/2005 @ 2:19pm

12. URMYGYRO,

    Yes, you are right. The point is, other seemingly 'moral' entities like the UN, France, Germany, Russia, China, are doing nothing either. They don't care one bit.

    Posted by kmg4 at 08/24/2005 @ 2:22pm

13. KMG4,

    So why exactly should the US wait for international peer pressure before we do something? If we are, as the current administration touts, so focused on stopping terrorism and spreading freedom around the world, then shouldn't we have addressed this issue long ago?

    I also like how you complain about the ineffectiveness of the UN, especially since the UN can only exercise the power granted to it (which is not much).

    Posted by neko-chan at 08/24/2005 @ 2:26pm

14. I know how to help tsunami victims. I know what to do to support our troops. I know how to vote to change my government.

    I don't know what to do to help stop genocide in Sudan.

    So hearing about it just makes me feel powerless and frustrated. Maybe most of us feel that way. Maybe that explains why traffic on the blog drops off and the news coverage isn't their.

    Because the crisis begs the question "What can I do to help?"

    And the answer is "I still don't know..."

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/24/2005 @ 2:35pm

15. ILP check out beawitness.org It's a start

    Posted by carpenters at 08/24/2005 @ 2:45pm

16. NEKO-CHAN,

    Peer pressure? Why don't those countries do anything themselves? Aren't they in possession of morality to do anything, WITHOUT the US? It seems to me that France, Germany, Russia, China, etc. don't care, and just want the US to do all the heavy lifting. Why can't any of them take the lead, FOR ONCE?

    The UN no longer has credibility after the oil-for-food scandal (the biggest financial fraud in history) and the typical abuse of locals committed by UN 'peacekeepers'.

    Posted by kmg4 at 08/24/2005 @ 2:47pm

17. Personally, I think that a UN-managed force of European soldiers, substantial in size, could have the dual effect of stopping the genocide in Dharfur while at the same time creating a precedent of international military/police response on a large scale minus US involvement. That second item has a lot of ramifications. What if UN signatories no longer need the US to handle a lot of different and difficult problems requiring military force? How does the balance of power change at that point?

    Posted by Zero at 08/24/2005 @ 3:11pm

18. It is obvious that the world-wide protests against our going into Iraq were about anti-Americanism and for no other reason; why else do we not see world-wide protests about Darfur? Or Zimbabwe? Or Tibet?

    Posted by RonS at 08/24/2005 @ 3:16pm

19. Why do you focus on anti-Americanism? The issue is the genocide in Dharfur. And, certainly, the US military has a media presence in front of the world that the average band of North African gunmen does not. Your "anti-Americanism" complaint is deeply simplistic, and besides the point.

    The question is "how to stop the genocide in Dharfur?" not "were worldwide protests against the invasion of Iraq about 'anti-Americanism' or instead something bigger than that?"

    Posted by Zero at 08/24/2005 @ 3:20pm

20. RONS

    Obvious why? Because any disagreement with Bush doctrine is "un-american"?

    Posted by carpenters at 08/24/2005 @ 3:21pm

21. Usually liberals blame America for going to war for oil. Now it's the same people who are blaming the U.S. for not going to war for oil. Interresting.

    Unfortunately the U.N. will do nothing against the Sudanese government. The same government who received weapons from Al-Queda when Bin Laden was harbored there. The U.N. will do nothing because both China (which occupies Tibet) and Russia (attrocities in Chechnya) will veto any action. If that is the case, will The Nation support military action like the "illegal" air-stikes launched in Bosnia in 1999.

    By the way, where is the so called "Arab street"? How come Muslims aren't pressuring their governments to end these attrocities?

    Posted by Zeddmen at 08/24/2005 @ 3:29pm

22. RONS, The answer to your question is, we announced to the world that we were going after Saddam Hussein. The world had time to organize in protest prior to the war. The killers in Sudan never went to the world and announced they were going to start butchering people. They never tried to rally other countries to the cause of genocide. They just started doing it.

    Clearly there are other factors keeping it under the RADAR as well, but when you announce to the world you're going to start illegal aggressive combat it tends to get attention...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/24/2005 @ 3:31pm

23. CARPENTERS: NO, OF COURSE NOT. Because if they were consistent, they would ALSO opppose what other governments are doing elsewhere in the world. If you can be outraged about the U.S. going into Iraq but not outraged about genocide in Darfur and other parts of the world, then I would suspect your motivation is anti-Americanism.

    Posted by RonS at 08/24/2005 @ 3:44pm

24. Zeddmen: so China and Russia, which may have strategic relationships with Sudan, will veto security council resolutions, therefore, following your thought process, the UN is as useless as the US-minus-the-UN in dealing with Dharfur.

    You ask if those who oppose the illegal Bush invasion of Iraq would suddenly turn around and support an illegal (in the UN Charter sense) invasion of Sudan to stop the genocide. This is a good question. Let me ask you: would you supporters of invasions that violate the UN Charter (I believe these are illegal) support a European "coalition of the willing" to invade Sudan, for the very obvious purpose of stopping the documented genocide underway?

    Posted by Zero at 08/24/2005 @ 3:50pm

25. Rons: but you say yourself that there is a problem with media visibility of the problem in Sudan. There was no lack of media visibility with the rush to war episode. How can you expect outrage over a problem people have only a distant awareness of? You see? You can't conclude "anti-Americanism" yet, not until you see media visibility of Dharfur on the same scope as the threatened US invasion of Iraq, for some time, and a "lack of outrage". And, even then, it will not be possible to make summary conclusions.

    Posted by Zero at 08/24/2005 @ 3:52pm

26. ZERO and ILL:

    ILL: That is ridiculous. The world has known about Darfur for a long time now, and as Ari points out, we still need to do something. There could be protests NOW. The same world-wide community of progressives and other activists that unites on anti-globalization issues and anti-IraQ war issues could be mobilized to something NOW. They could have been mobilized do somethin since March of 2004. And Zero, that is my point, this world-wide community of progressives that you guys like to talk about can help enormously do to something by organizing world-wide protests to put pressure on the UN, EU, the US, NATO, to do something!

    Posted by RonS at 08/24/2005 @ 3:53pm

27. And to answer the question, Zeddmen, I think that a UN resolution should go through the security council and authorize an international military response to Dharfur, which should be led by Western Europe and all others who care to contribute. I recognize that Russia and China in particular have strategic interests with Khartoum, just as the US does, that will likely prevent a security council resolution. And this is outrageous. We have a problem with great powers abusing UNSC authority to serve their own strategic economic interests at the expense of human lives. However, I do not support an illegal (UN Charter violating) invasion of Dharfur because this is at best vigilantism and follows a very bad precedent set by Bush. This leaves the open question of the utility of the UN in dealing with security problems given that the great powers in the security council abuse their positions to serve greedy agendas. I can face that question.

    Now, would *you* support a charter-breaking invasion of Sudan by UN signatory agencies, minus the US, probably against the Bush administration's will, to stop the genocide, incidentally changing the strategic situation in Sudan which envelopes oil, terrorism, etc.?

    Posted by Zero at 08/24/2005 @ 3:59pm

28. Rons: I disagree with you that the "world has known about Dharfur for a long time". As Ari points out, Tom Cruise love life gets on the order of a factor of 800 greater air time than Dharfur. This is not a sufficient to generate the broad awareness you need to come to your conclusions about "anti-Americanism". Also, people do organize on the Dharfur issue. It just doesn't get the attention Iraq does. It gets the same attention that the Saddam regime got for internal security actions prior to the first US invasion, I speculate. And few paused to consider Iraq until Kuwait was invaded.

    Posted by Zero at 08/24/2005 @ 4:03pm

29. ZERO, I have been following the situation there since the first reports, and that is because a friend of mine was routinely sending me articles from the leading British newspapers and BBC and BBC Africa. I think the Europeans have been better informed about the situation there than we, especially the British and the French (the latter I understand have the largest oil interests there). Again, you have this world-wide community of progressives formed from the anti-globalization movement and enhanced by the anti-war movement. These people are informed. If there were massive demonstrations close to the scale of the anti-Iraq war demonstrations, I would know. The point is, you progressive activists have the international machinery to put pressure on world governments on this issue, and I urge you to do so. I think you can be successful. (And OK, whatever was known/not known before, it is known now.)

    Posted by RonS at 08/24/2005 @ 4:21pm

30. Zero wrote:

    "deeply simplistic"

    How is that possible?

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/24/2005 @ 5:22pm

31. BTW, the US invasion of Iraq was not illegal. The Senate authorized war by a vote of 77-23, with John Kerry, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton among those who voted in favor.

    Not that we need UN approval, but President Bush secured a unanimous (15-0) UN resolution presenting Saddam with an ultimatum to comply with its terms "or else." This was an ultimatum of war (so UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix described it). The deadline was December 7, 2002. Saddam failed to comply (so Hans Blix concluded in his book Disarming Iraq.

    But we don't need UN approval, as Clinton never got UN approval to bomb Serbia. That is why Bill Clinton correctly supports the Iraq war today.

    Facts don't matter to leftists, however. That is why they lose elections so heavily. Their Goebbels-like plan to repeat the same lie again and again in the hopes of making sane, non-leftist people believe it will not work in America.

    Plus, if leftists were so concerned about 'legality', why no condemnation for Saddam paying $25,000 each to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. That sure violated a lot of laws. Leftists care about laws only when it supports their anti-American obsession.

    Posted by kmg4 at 08/24/2005 @ 5:44pm

32. More proof that the fifth-column left is on the side of the terrorists, driven by their mutual hatred/envy of America.

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19206

    Posted by kmg4 at 08/24/2005 @ 5:46pm

33. Well, I was going to try to respond to the first post, but the second convinces me already that I have found ignore list member three. You're a triumvirate now, adios.

    Posted by Zero at 08/24/2005 @ 5:49pm

34. I don't care what someone who's handle is the same as his IQ thinks. Sure, dodge questions in cowardice, and then be surprised at the electoral losses.

    Posted by kmg4 at 08/24/2005 @ 5:51pm

35. rons: let's both agree to cross our fingers and hope things in general get better. I've got to run now, thanks for the talk today, I am under the weather and I hear a beautifully medicinal can of Ginger Ale calling my name.

    Urmgyro: touche!

    Posted by Zero at 08/24/2005 @ 5:52pm

36. fifth column, out!

    Posted by Zero at 08/24/2005 @ 5:52pm

37. KMG4:

    Since you brought it up, the war (and the 2002 Congressional resolution) is acutally unconstitutional.

    In October 2002, Congress passed the resolution which stated: "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to 1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and 2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

    The United States Congress never voted for the Iraq war. They instead passed a resolution which unlawfully transferred to the president the decision-making power of whether to launch a first-strike invasion of Iraq. The United States Constitution vests the power of deciding whether to send the nation into war solely in the United States Congress. (See Article I, Section 8).

    By unlawfully ceding the war-declaring power to the president, they allowed the president to start a war against Iraq based on whatever evidence or whatever lies he chose.

    Congress cannot transfer to the president its exclusive power to declare war any more than it can transfer its exclusive power to levy taxes. Such a transfer is illegal. These are non-delegable powers held only by the United States Congress.

    The Founding Fathers agreed. Thomas Jefferson: the War Powers Clause "an effectual check to the Dog of war." George Mason: it is "for clogging rather than facilitating war." James Wilson: "This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large." James Madison: "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confines the question of war and peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

    So Democrats and Republicans alike disregarded the Constitution in passing the resolution whih led to the war. Senator Byrd rightly objected, and stated, "We are handing this over to the President of the United States," Byrd said. "When we do that, we can put up a sign on the top of this Capitol, and we can say: 'Gone home. Gone fishing. Out of business.'" Byrd added: "I never thought I would see the day in these forty-four years I have been in this body... when we would cede this kind of power to any president."

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/24/2005 @ 6:44pm

38. But they still voted 77-23 to authorize it, and recently voted 100-0 to assign another $80 billion to fund it.

    Apparently, both parties in Congress still want it to continue. If they wanted to revoke what they did, they could, but the vote to fund it further was unanimous.

    Posted by kmg4 at 08/24/2005 @ 6:47pm

39. .

    Still Dying in Darfur

    Despite the Islamist government-sponsored killing, pillaging and rape, Khartoum remains a crucial ally in Washington's war on terror.

    That is patent rubbish. The US is the foremost aid donor in Darfur. No other govt has exerted itself more on behalf of the refugees. Moreover, the Sudan is not America's ally just because a hopped up L.A. reporter claims it is. The Khartoum govt is one of the crummiest, most murderous and deceitful regimes on earth. The US knows it and that regime knows the US knows. Sudan is walking a thin line, just as is Musharef's Pakistan. Both those countries are in a position to help America against al Qaeda (which once was headquartered in Sudan). There is no reason to not milk that help for all it's worth.

    Ari Berman is a phony. He doesn't give a damn about Darfur, except as an excuse to spit at the United States. If he cared he would target China from which Khartoum gets its money and its weapons. If he gave a warm fart for the dying and suffering he would address the one organization able to quickly change the situation: the Arab League. Sudan is a member. Its brothers are in the best position of anyone to bring economic and political and even military pressure on Sudan. Certainly moral pressure.

    An Arab and Muslim state is committing genocide, and the Arab League does not say moo. But the great moralist Berman can't bring himself to point a finger in that direction. Because he is a jerk who has never had a thought of his own or taken an independent step.

    .

    Posted by nacl at 08/24/2005 @ 7:17pm

40. ZERO:

    I would support a E.U. led coalition to stop genocide in the Sudan, even if the U.N. didn't authorize it. The problem with the U.N. is that any one permanent security member can veto an entire resolution. The U.N. must do away with this so that countries like China (or the U.S. for that matter) can't wield far too much power. The U.N. must redeem itself after Rwanda and Bosnia. It was founded precisely so that genocide like that taking place in Sudan would never happen again.

    Unfortunately for the E.U. only Britain could fight a war in Sudan. France's military is designed for peace-keeping missions. As for the other countries, their militaries aren't even worth mentioning. By the way, Schroeder had a difficult time convincing his Parliament to send troops into Afghanistan. There's no way any German soldiers are going to the Sudan.

    Posted by Zeddmen at 08/24/2005 @ 7:23pm

41. RONS, Sorry but your 3:44 PM post is just not so. You ignore the point of protest. The point of protest is to try to change something over which you have or may have influence. As US citizens it is our civic duty to be active in our governmental process. It is part of the first ammendment - petitioning the government for redress of grievances, peaceably assembling, all of that stuff. It was put in there because the founding fathers didn't have those options when their own government was the government of King George. They had no way of influencing their own government, so they fought a revolution and gave themselves rights in the subsequent government.

    To ask why people don't protest Al Qaeda or Darfur makes as much sense as asking "why didn't you vote in the Al Qaeda elections."

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/24/2005 @ 8:25pm

42. ILOVEPHYSICS,

    That makes sense, of course - that protesting Al-Qaeda is futile, while protesting a liberal Democracy like the US may yield results.

    BUT, that is also an admission that democracies like the US, UK, etc. are morally superior to Al-Qaeda, and, for that matter Communist China (which massacred protestors in 1989). In fact, that one CAN protest the US, while not Al-Qaeda, does indicate who's side any sane person should be on.

    Not many of the left would admit that, due to a rigid belief in moral equivalence. Michael Moore's belief that Zarqawi's terrorists in Iraq are 'freedom fighters' is an example of this. The wish by other leftists that America receive 'a million Mogadishus' is an example of this. Ward Churchwill saying the 9/11 victims deserved what they got doe to their role in the US economy is an example of this.

    Posted by kmg4 at 08/24/2005 @ 8:55pm

43. Plus, by what you also say, people SHOULD protest the governments of France, Germany, etc. to do something about Darfur. Protesting the US and UK is fine, as long as France and Germany are also held to the same standard for their inaction regarding Darfur.

    Posted by kmg4 at 08/24/2005 @ 8:57pm

44. Dharfar is a good example of how the UN is an ineffective and disfunctional organization. If we truly want to stop the killing it will take the NATO or a "coalition of the willing" to get it done. Of course if we had not gone into Iraq and Saddam was still there butchering the Shiites and Kurds I guess Ari would be writing an article criticizing the President for not taking action. Len

    Posted by Len Mosse at 08/24/2005 @ 10:31pm

45. Len Mosse,

    You are correct. These leftists would be criticizing Bush for not removing Saddam and letting 'him exist with his WMDs', if we had not gone there. Howard Dean even went so far as to say that Iraq was a waste of time when North Korea was not being addressed.

    Just like they say Bush/Rice didn't do enough to prevent 9/11, but oppose the Patriot Act at the same time.

    Posted by kmg4 at 08/24/2005 @ 10:42pm

46. Through ELF, France has plenty of experience dealing with African countries. Not to mention them arming the Hutus in Rwanda.

    Posted by Zeddmen at 08/24/2005 @ 11:11pm

47. ILP: Millions of non-U.S. citizens protested the U.S. war in Iraq -- Irish, French, German, etc. Also, the protest would be to pressure the Western democracies and the United Nations to do something. We are part of the U.N., are we not? You don't seem to get it.

    Posted by RonS at 08/24/2005 @ 11:22pm

48. KMG4:

    I do not care what the vote was. Nothing you said counters my argument that the "authorization" Bush received from Congress was consititutional. Dou you have any basis for how it was? If so, please tell me. You brought up the legality of the war. Why can't you offer any support?

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/24/2005 @ 11:29pm

49. Len Mosse and KMG4:

    What a waste of space. Do you think really think your hypotheical has any validity? Your self-serving post does nothing to support Bush's policies. As is typical, you have nothing on point other than to attack the messenger.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/24/2005 @ 11:37pm

50. HMAN23-- Your arguemant about the illegality of the war in Iraq was brought to federal court---more than once. It was thrown out. The Federal Courts feel that the President has the power as Commander in Chief to send out troops into battle. This is not a new decision, it is a long standing one. Presidents have sent troops into harms way without a declaration of war since 1800. The Courts feel that the Congress has the right to stop funding the war in Iraq if they see fit. The federal Court therefore feels that they should not get involved ===Len

    Posted by Len Mosse at 08/24/2005 @ 11:38pm

51. Len Mosse: Give me a cite.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/24/2005 @ 11:39pm

52. HMAN 23----This is the second time that I have been accused of attacking the messenger when all that I have done is point things that I disagree with or, as in this case, point out a possible reasonable contradiction in logic. What is the deal? Can't liberals take someone disagreeing with them? I was recently denied access to an AirAmerica board after I disagreed with most of the people on the board. I think that many liberals on this board, not all, just want to be around cheerleaders--they can't handle someone disagreeing with them.--Len

    Posted by Len Mosse at 08/24/2005 @ 11:46pm

53. NACL wrote:

    "That is patent rubbish. The US is the foremost aid donor in Darfur. No other govt has exerted itself more on behalf of the refugees. Moreover, the Sudan is not America's ally just because a hopped up L.A. reporter claims it is. The Khartoum govt is one of the crummiest, most murderous and deceitful regimes on earth. The US knows it and that regime knows the US knows. Sudan is walking a thin line, just as is Musharef's Pakistan. Both those countries are in a position to help America against al Qaeda (which once was headquartered in Sudan). There is no reason to not milk that help for all it's worth.

    Ari Berman is a phony. He doesn't give a damn about Darfur, except as an excuse to spit at the United States. If he cared he would target China from which Khartoum gets its money and its weapons. If he gave a warm fart for the dying and suffering he would address the one organization able to quickly change the situation: the Arab League. Sudan is a member. Its brothers are in the best position of anyone to bring economic and political and even military pressure on Sudan. Certainly moral pressure.

    An Arab and Muslim state is committing genocide, and the Arab League does not say moo. But the great moralist Berman can't bring himself to point a finger in that direction. Because he is a jerk who has never had a thought of his own or taken an independent step."

    NACL's cage got rattled by Ari. So funny that NACL is drawn to read a "phony's" blog and comment on it. NACL is just another example of an anonymous poster who absolutely hates liberals and considers them the enemy.

    NACL uses such colorful, over-the-top language, which just causes his message to border on the absurd. "Patent rubbish", "hopped up L.A. reporter", "crummiest, most murderous and deceitful regimes", "phony", "spit at the United States", "warm fart", and "jerk". hahaha.

    NACL, answer us this: Are you ok with President Bush capitulating to Iraq becoming an islamic religious state?

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/24/2005 @ 11:46pm

54. Len Mosse wrote:

    "The Federal Courts feel that the President has the power as Commander in Chief to send out troops into battle. This is not a new decision, it is a long standing one."

    Please cite cases backing that assertion up. Thank you.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/24/2005 @ 11:51pm

55. Len Mosse: Sorry! Your post was just such a typical knee-jer reaction to me. It's like me saying that the Right would be against the war if a Democrat had been on office. It has no validity. I'll still take that Fed. court case cite if you have it.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/24/2005 @ 11:53pm

56. HMAN23---- Case was John Doe I vs. President George Bush, Feb. 13,2003 in Boston. Judge Tauro in Federal District Court threw the case out. It was reviewed by the appellate court and the decision to throw the case out was reaffirmed by a three judge panel.--You can Google it yourself and check for accuracy.--After doing so --you can say you disagree with the decision, and the war should have been judged as illegal, but stop saying that "IS ILLEGAL".--- Len

    Posted by Len Mosse at 08/24/2005 @ 11:58pm

57. Virtually all the negative comments today ignore the substance of my post, where I blame the entire international community and raise the possiblity of a multinational intervention force. This is hardly a fault US only post, nor is it a celebration of the UN or standard left-wing line. In my opinion, the lack of response from both the left and right has been an outrage.

    Posted by Ari Berman at 08/25/2005 @ 12:02am

58. Len Mosse:

    please answer my 11:51pm post. thanks.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/25/2005 @ 12:11am

59. Ari -

    It comes down to moving a big rock. The world community, a thing so vast and complicated that not a single one of us can understand it entirety, has only inertia on the issue. My understanding also is that the infamous great powers of the UNSC each has self-centred "security" and/or "economic" interests that prevent them from participating in the obvious path to military/police intervention in southern Sudan. There is a vast rock to move. Perhaps you see better than I: how can it be moved?

    Posted by Zero at 08/25/2005 @ 12:40am

60. URMYGYRO----The United States has been involved in 200 armed conflicts and 9 Declared Wars. The first of these was in 1798 when Adams sent Marines to fight the Barbery Pirates. In those 200 armed conflicts (undeclared wars) the Supreme Court has never ruled those actions unconstitutional. They were given the chance in 1863 when the Constitutionality of Lincoln's blockade of southern ports was put in question in the "Prize Cases" --the court upheld Lincolns actions. During the Vietnam War the court had three oportunities to declare the Presidents actions unconstitutional--including the case in 1970 of "Mottola v. Nixon" --again they did not. Most recently in John Doe I vs. President George Bush 2003, again the court declined to rule the Presidents actions unconstitutional. I hope this answers your question.---Len

    Posted by Len Mosse at 08/25/2005 @ 01:02am

61. As others have said, Ari, Thank You.

    This type of article/blog is exactly why 'The Nation' is one of the magazines I can't do without.

    I've just emailed Keith Olbermann asking why he hasn't reported on this since he's only one on TV (along with John Stewart) I watch.

    Posted by ChiroDoc at 08/25/2005 @ 01:43am

62. Len Mosse:

    I was thinking more of cases that the courts approved beforehand the president sending troops into battle, not after the fact saying the president's actions weren't unconstitutional.

    Also, please name specific cases from the Lincoln era and from the early 1800s.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/25/2005 @ 02:11am

63. An ugly truth...

    there is NO political will, Democrat or Republican or United Nations, to help with the sadly continuous series of "African crises".

    Reagan/Bush ignored Ethiopia (only Bob Geldolf gave it prominence)....Bill Clinton ignored a Holocaust called Rwanda....and Bush-43 AND the Europeans and other major nations are ignoring Darfur.

    I don't know what can change that...unless if it happens in Nigeria, with its oil reserves, but from Chad to Angola to Eritrea, it will probably happen again and again, and no American politician of either party, and almost no Europeans or industrialized Asians....will give a damn!

    Posted by Mask at 08/25/2005 @ 06:48am

64. URMYGYRO--- Federal Courts do not work that way. They can not be proactive (rule on the action of a President before someone trys to get an injunction stopping the action). They can only rule on cases that are brought before them by people who have standing. So the President does not have to get court approval before sending troops into Iraq. The big Constitutional Issue was; did the President need Congressional Approval before he sent troops into Iraq? I believe he did and he got it. Because of the War Powers Act, Congress can check the President and require that the troops be brought home. They have not done so. The 1863 case is Berg v. British & African Steam Nav.Co (Prize case)--in this case the Court ruled 5-4 that the President had the power to use troops in armed conflict without a declaration of war (and in this case without approval of Congress--Lincoln however did get approval of Congress after the fact)--I think I have documented my arguement quite sufficiently.---Len

    Posted by Len Mosse at 08/25/2005 @ 07:33am

65. Ari, well said. I suggest all of us here take a day off of the blogs and spend today's blog time writing letters to the media, anti-war organizations, and congress to focus on this issue.

    Posted by RonS at 08/25/2005 @ 08:18am

66. In my opinion. I think the UN should sanction certain private mercenary groups to bring stability to the war torn areas in Africa like Darfur. Executive Outcomes proved they could do the job better than the UN can. I can't remember but I think it was Sierra Leone, Angola, or the Congo where they proved their effectivness. The UN couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. Case in point. Does anyone remember the 500 UN peace keepers that were kidnapped by the RUF? Somalia? Rawanda? etc. I'm not saying that any mercenary group should be allowed to participate but, if the UN could have a list of mercenary groups that they can call on, that meet a certain criteria, I think they should be allowed to participate. Some countries have outlawed the use of mercenaries but I think UN sponsered mercenary groups is a viable alternative. Just a thought!

    Posted by redstateman at 08/25/2005 @ 09:53am

67. Mask, you are right that there are absolutely no votes to be gained by talking about Darfur. The news is not covering for fear of losing viewers, and thus Americans are largely ignorant about another genocide. The activists on this issue mostly comprise university students and Christian evangelicals. They deserve our thanks and support on this one. Rep. Frank Wolf, Republican from Virginia, is the best on these issues. And Obama is catching on--he just hired Samantha Power as a foreign policy advisor. Much of the international community has ignored or been divided, with China blocking any possible Security Council resolution. That's why NATO is best placed to intervene, if the African countries allow that to happen. The UN currently has an emergency relief fund for humanitarian crises that is only $50 million and frequently empty. They are proposing a raise to $500 million--1% of the US defense budget, if my math is correct. That would not ensure a political solution, but it would give the world the resources to respond to catastrophes in places like Sudan and Niger.

    Posted by Ari Berman at 08/25/2005 @ 10:44am

68. LEN MOSSE:

    I read the case. You are right in that the court declined to hold that the act was unconstitutional. But they did not say that it was constitutional either. As I read it, the court declined jurisdiction and did not even reach the issue, holding it was a nonjusticiable political question to be decided between the legislative and executive branches. Because there was no apparent conflict between the two branches judicial intervention was not warranted. I was always stating my opinion on the legality of the Iraq war; I never meant to imply that a court had ruled so. Simply because Judge Tauro held there was no jurisdiction, doesn't close the debate. I'll stick with my opinion.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/25/2005 @ 10:45am

69. HMAN23----Check my above post to URMYGYRO for other cases that have set a precedent in this area. ----You are entitled to your opinion, but do not portray it as fact. Two hundred times a President of the United States has sent troops in combat without a declaration of war---The Court has had opportunities to say that the Presidents actions were unconstitutional (1863 Prize cases, and 1970 Motolla v Nixon)---The Court has declined.---Len

    Posted by Len Mosse at 08/25/2005 @ 11:21am

70. HMAN23----In your earlier post you asked KMG4 for documentation for his/her opinion that the war was legal---you implied that there was none or that he/she could not come up with it. I hope my intrusion into the discussion has settled the question of whether there is legal precedent for Presidents sending troops into combat without a declaration of war.---Len

    Posted by Len Mosse at 08/25/2005 @ 11:30am

71. .

    ARI BERMAN

    you are right that there are absolutely no votes to be gained by talking about Darfur.

    No, that is not right!

    You are sitting smack on one of the chief scandals of Darfur.

    If British raiding parties were murdering and evicting the Irish (as they once did) would the Irish American community today sit by quietly? If the Austrians descended on Tuscany with mayhem and ethnic cleansing would Italian Americans not raise the roof? Would they not besiege Congress, would the streets not be filled with protests? And so too if Turkey or Pakistan suddenly attacked Israel. American Jews would shake the rafters of this country.

    Then where the hell are the blacks?

    Where is the civil rights community? Why isn't Sharpton marching in rage. Where is Farakan and a million men and women roaring: Darfur, Darfur, Darfur

    Blacks by the hundreds of thousands are being murdered and raped and chased from their homes and the American black community, 40 million strong, doesn't say moo? Why not? wht is going on?

    Why isn't it an electoral issue? Why doesn't the civil rights community, black and white, declare that no congressperson of any party will get a vote from blacks or whites, who doe not rustle up some real action, with regard to Darfur, now!?

    Or is it because the Left knows that Darfur will get it into a confrontation with with the Arabs, with Muslims! Because the natural and obvious move would be to raise a holler against the Arab League.

    One of its members is committing genocide. What are the other Arab states doing? Where is there moral stance in this matter? How do they see their responsibility here?

    And why doesn't the black community and the liberal community and the civil rights community pin back the ears of the Arabs on this matter.

    They can exert economic and political and moral pressure on their member state. Why aren't they exercising their influence? Why are they not being pushed to act by public opinion? Where is public opinion?

    Why is there complete silence on this matter?

    Posted by nacl at 08/25/2005 @ 12:11pm