House Members Arrested in Darfur Protest Say Obama Must Act

One of the initiatives of the anti-apartheid struggle of the 1980s was the decision by members of Congress and other prominent figures to be arrested in protests organized by TransAfrica at the South African Embassy in Washington.

The arrests focused public attention on the movement to free Nelson Mandela and other members of the African National Congress, and on the need to change U.S. policies that propped up the white-minority government of South Africa.

Now, in an effort to focus attention on concerns about the decision of the Sudanese government to expel 16 aid agencies from Darfur, five progressive members of the House, including veteran civil rights campaigner John Edwards, have been arrested on civil disobedience charges outside the Sudanese embassy in Washington.

Arrested Monday with Lewis, the Georgia Democrat who marched in the 1960s with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., were four other Democrats: Donna Edwards of Maryland, Keith Ellison of Minnesota, Jim McGovern of Massachusetts and Lynn Woolsey of California.

Arrested with the House members were Save Darfur Coalition president Jerry Fowler, Enough Project co-founder John Prendergast and Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.

The arrests came after the group crossed a police line outside the embassy in order to focus attention what Lewis bluntly described as "genocide" in Darfur.

"In Darfur, almost half a million people have been killed. Countless women and girls have been raped and abused. And millions more have fled their homes leaving loved ones behind," said Lewis. "This terror, this violence, this horrible abuse must end," said the veteran congressman who joined Monday's protest after Sudan expelled the aid groups in response to the International Criminal Court's decision to issue an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir on charges that Bashir used the "instruments of state" to direct the mass murder of tens of thousands of Sudanese civilians in Darfur.

Calling on international officials and the Obama administration to do more, Lewis said, "I don't understand how the world can just stand by and watch the slaughter of innocent victims in Darfur."

After his release -- following booking, fingerprinting, the snapping of a mug shot and the payment of a $100 fine -- McGovern said, "If we can help raise awareness and create a sense of urgency and get President Obama more involved, then I think it was worth it."

Obama was active in the anti-apartheid movement of the 1980s and has visited the refugee camps of Darfur.

Presumably, he will be more inclined to act than Ronald Reagan, the president at the time of the anti-apartheid protests that did not sway Reagan but that did get Congress to override a presidential veto and pass the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986.

Comments (26)

1. good for them.

   but what is the realistically achievable goal here? raising public awareness?

   Posted by dexter666 at 04/27/2009 @ 3:45pm

2. Sounds like it's time for Congress to pass another bill/act.....name it the Comprehensive Anti-Darfurian Genocide Act of 2009....it's the least the Libs can do since they control everything!

   Posted by Happy at 04/27/2009 @ 3:46pm

3. it's the least the Libs can do since they control everything!

   Posted by Happy at 04/27/2009 @ 3:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   pretty much the ONLY thing ANYBODY can do, unfortunately. as long as the chi-coms want that sudanese oil, not gonna be anything resembling a UN embargo.

   it would be nice if the organization of african states would get together and call on others to help, but that is impossible too since half of them could be next in a perfect world...

   Posted by dexter666 at 04/27/2009 @ 3:57pm

4. Posted by Happy at 04/27/2009 @ 3:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   Just remember Happy, this is the same collection of naysayers that chided G.W.Bush for NOT doing anything to stop the genocide in Dafur!

   Remember how Clinton did nothing about Rhwanda, now Obamanation and the Demoncrats will sit back and do NOTHING about Dafur except blame Bush!

   Posted by comancheamerican at 04/27/2009 @ 4:53pm

5. Obamanation and the Demoncrats will sit back and do NOTHING about Dafur except blame Bush!

   Posted by comancheamerican at 04/27/2009 @ 4:53pm

   Oh? Do you know something about this that none of demoncrats know? Was Bush somehow responsible? Or are you just spouting ugly angry partisan BS? Trying to make this a Dem V. Rep issue? Dude your pathetic. Your statement is akin to making the Nazi concentration camps and genocide a partisan issue. WEAK.

   Posted by Extraneous at 04/27/2009 @ 5:28pm

6. .it's the least the Libs can do since they control everything!

   Posted by Happy at 04/27/2009 @ 3:46pm

   hmmm,

   mr. blankfein doesn't strike me as being too liberal.

   maybe mr. pandit is....

   Posted by frosty zoom at 04/27/2009 @ 5:46pm

7. "House Members Arrested in Darfur Protest Say Obama Must Act"

   oh, he's acting all right.......

   Posted by frosty zoom at 04/27/2009 @ 5:46pm

8. watch for more and more of these tragedies to occur as water supplies keep diminishing.

   religion is just a nasty façade.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 04/27/2009 @ 5:49pm

9. The biggest joke is "The International Criminal Court's decision to issue an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir."

   My question is: Which liberal activist is going to serve the warrant? Step forward, please.

   The only solution that "might" actually work for Darfur is a military one and no one has the will or the inclination to do it. I do not want to waste Marines for people who do not want to be saved. Face it, this will just be another Somalia. Put a wall around it and walk away. The killing will stop when they get tired of dying or everyone is dead.

   Posted by pyeatte at 04/27/2009 @ 6:32pm

10. The warrant was already served, and I hate to tell you but these people, those raped and displaced, have been screaming for us to help them for well over 4 years.

    Posted by nowickedwitch at 04/27/2009 @ 7:42pm

11. I do not want to waste Marines for people who do not want to be saved.

    Posted by pyeatte at 04/27/2009 @ 6:32pm

    This is a novel and refreshing viewpoint from one of our neocon friends.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 04/27/2009 @ 7:54pm

12. but pyeatte,

    they've got oil!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/27/2009 @ 7:55pm

13. is the same collection of naysayers that chided G.W.Bush for NOT doing anything to stop the genocide in Dafur!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 04/27/2009 @ 4:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    They sound pretty consistent in their criticism to me.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 04/27/2009 @ 7:56pm

14. Posted by frosty zoom at 04/27/2009 @ 7:55pm: I think it is offshore so it's ok. :)

    Posted by pyeatte at 04/27/2009 @ 8:11pm

15. Posted by nowickedwitch at 04/27/2009 @ 7:42pm: Serving a warrant and enforcing it are two different things. I know this has been going on for many years and that is my point, nothing will actually be done except for the usual wailing and hand wringing.|

    Posted by pyeatte at 04/27/2009 @ 8:14pm

16. the united states government, oil speculators, and others, armed bashir's opposition.

    and, btw, there is no such thing as a "darfurian"

    Posted by darladoon at 04/27/2009 @ 9:09pm

17. Posted by darladoon at 04/27/2009 @ 9:09pm

    What's wrong with arming Bashir's opposition? I'll put a couple Jackson's on that one.

    Posted by gangpapist at 04/27/2009 @ 11:01pm

18. If these cowardly Demoncrats care so much about Dafur, why don't they fly there instead to do their demonstrating and perhaps give this administration the opportunity to PROVE that it can actually act rather than pontificate with empty rhetoric?

    Posted by comancheamerican at 04/27/2009 @ 11:30pm

19. "What's wrong with arming Bashir's opposition?"

    why does the united states oppose bashir? what did bashir do, prior to the uprising, to piss of the united states? can you answer that question?

    "If these cowardly Demoncrats care so much about Dafur...."

    does anyone else think comanche has a learning disability?

    Posted by darladoon at 04/27/2009 @ 11:47pm

20. Posted by darladoon at 04/27/2009 @ 11:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Once a darlaloon always a darlaloon!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 04/28/2009 @ 12:25am

21. What happened to the 26,000 UN troops that were supposed to be dispatched to Darfur? From what I have seen the UN troops do not intercede in the violence perpetrated on African tribes and villages. They seem to be merely on observe and report status. If that is true, what good are they? Apparently they cannot even ensure safe delivery of humanitarian aid.

    I'm certainly no expert on Darfur, but it seems to me that the Arab militias that are actively conducting this genocide are moving about raping, kiling and looting in Toyota trucks, on horseback and camels. Does the UN not have a modern armed force? Do they have some sort of bullshit rule of engagement keeping them from doing the job correctly? I'm a bit confused on this one.

    Why not send 2 Divisions of Marines to address these problems. Would that be a mistake? We would actually be sending troops in that could make a real difference in a noble cause.

    Is not that really how a military should be used?

    Posted by chaoszen at 04/28/2009 @ 06:02am

22. Sending troops to stop the killing in Darfur would be the right thing to do, Chaoszen, just as it was in Serbia or get rid of the likes of Saddam Hussein. 'Course, I'd take bets with you on how long it would be before the bitching started over our overseas intervention-and most of it would be found right here.

    Posted by william.harry13 at 04/28/2009 @ 07:42am

23. Mr Prendergast has opposed the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 05 and the Darfur Peace Agreement of 06 . He and people like him do not want peace in Darfur or stability in Sudan. Save Darfor Coaliition's Fowler collects donations for anti-Sudanese purposes ;not to help displaced Darfuris. He and his politically motivated organisation(which is part of the Likud Lobby in the US)are only interested in regime change in Sudan. What is needed in Sudan is the revitalisation of the peace process ; engaging the government and persuading the recalcitrant rebels to negotiate in good faith . The Obama administration should be pragmatic and listen to previous envoys like Andrew Natsios who was a hardliner against Sudan ;but is advocatig diplomatic not military policies towards sudan.

    Posted by KhalidAlmubarak at 04/28/2009 @ 07:49am

24. Posted by snowball666 at 04/28/2009 @ 08:20am

    It doesn't seem to me that we would be bogged down in this case. The objective would be clear and defined. Unlike our current conflicts. Which rely on Orwellian everlasting dogma like "War on Terror".

    In this case we would be insuring the delivery of humanitarian aid and the safety of african tribal villages. I assume that the Marines would have very little difficulty in dispatching a bunch of camel jockeys and Toyota driving brigands. We would of course have to eliminate the current bunch of assholes in Khartoum that are supporting the genocide.

    The only problem might be that China is after oil reserves and other natural resources in the region and are presently supporting the militias and "government" in Khartoum.

    We could piss off the Chinese and since they pretty much own our country. That might not be a very good idea. Maybe that is why nothing is being done. So the Chinese own our debt and meanwhile hundreds of thousands of human beings are slaughtered in the name of capitalism and seizing other peoples natural resources so that the U.S. can borrow money in our name to bail out the very people that screwed us in the first place. And insure a cheap supply of inferior goods from China. Maddening isn't it?

    Posted by chaoszen at 04/28/2009 @ 10:15am

25. I'm not sure what can be done about Darfur, but I know that that the U.S. can avoid some of these tricky foreign policy situations by increasing its strategic foreign aid program.

    The Borgen Project has good info on the estimated cost of ending global poverty:

    $30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.

    $550 billion: U.S. Defense budget.

    Posted by davidwaters at 04/28/2009 @ 5:13pm

26. Our international incursions have been a disaster in the past couple of decades. We went into Somalia and were greeted with stiff resistance; everybody says the Iraq war was a mistake; The Russians got kicked out of Afghanistan so we have idiotically taken their place and it looks like we are going to escalate our military presence there. Now, we have "leaders" who, instead of concentrating on domestic problems, want the US to get involved in Sudan. It seems some of use will never learn to stay out of other countries' internal affairs. We have all this handwringing here, while neighboring African nations calmly observe what goes on in Sudan (and Zimbabwe for another example) and do absolutely nothing. This is because they mind their own business and do not suffer from delusions of grandeur that they are the kings of the universe.

    How much American blood and treasure these protestors are willing to spill in Sudan? Haven't they learned anything from recent history?

    Posted by jsens at 04/29/2009 @ 1:00pm