Jimmy Carter on Darfur: What genocide?
posted at 4:39 pm on October 8, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
And to think I was worried that that supergroup he formed with Mandela might not be helpful.
“There is a legal definition of genocide and Darfur does not meet that legal standard. The atrocities were horrible but I don’t think it qualifies to be called genocide,” he said. Washington is almost alone in branding the 4 1/2 years of violence in Darfur genocide. Khartoum rejects the term, European governments are reluctant to use it and a U.N.-appointed commission of inquiry found no genocide, but that some individuals may have acted with genocidal intent. Carter, whose charitable foundation, the Carter Center, worked to establish the International Criminal Court (ICC), said: “If you read the law textbooks … you’ll see very clearly that it’s not genocide and to call it genocide falsely just to exaggerate a horrible situation I don’t think it helps.
The point here isn’t that he think Darfur fails to qualify as a textbook case of genocide; other international bodies agree, although most prominent American politicians do not. The point is that he’s resorting to a textbook definition in the first place. If you’re dealing with murder on a scale so massive that it might arguably constitute genocide, by what insane logic is it preferable to err on the side of saying that it isn’t genocide and thereby eschew the tremendous moral force that comes with that term? If it’s genocide then thoughts turn to the Holocaust and the world is compelled to intervene. If it isn’t then it’s a civil war gone bad that’ll work itself out — eventually. Jimmeh likes the latter approach because it appeases the Sudanese government and, theoretically, makes them more amenable to negotiations. After they’ve already killed 200,000 people.
That’s one reason why using the textbook definition is offensive. There’s another reason, too: namely, that Carter hasn’t always been such a stickler for precision when applying that vaunted moral yardstick of his. If it’s so desperately “unhelpful” to go throwing around the concept of genocide even when it arguably applies, explain this.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
I don’t truly “hate” many people in this world, but Jiminy Carter is one of those whom I hate down to the core of my being.
Mindcrime on October 8, 2007 at 4:42 PM
That’s our Jimmah, too gutless to call a ‘genocide’ a ‘genocide’.
Once a coward, always a coward.
thirteen28 on October 8, 2007 at 4:43 PM
…and this is the guy who calls the state of Israel an apartheid state.
Scum. How did he ever get elected? I actually have more respect for Clinton.
MadisonConservative on October 8, 2007 at 4:43 PM
My God, if Webster doesn’t call it genocide, then by gum it isn’t genocide.
What’s a few million deaths anyway, besides they are only…
right2bright on October 8, 2007 at 4:44 PM
Punk. I can’t believe this guy was ever president. When the killers are muslim (even when the VICTIMS are muslim too) nobody on the left has the balls to call it what it is. Terrorism, genocide, whatever, the RoP would NEVER do that.
Tony737 on October 8, 2007 at 4:47 PM
MC, I kid you not – my Freshman year at oSu [1976] – I sat by somebody, who I knew from high school. I asked her, “Who are you going to vote for?” Her answer: “Jimmy Carter, he wears blue jeans.”
And the American electorate has gone downhill from there.
OhEssYouCowboys on October 8, 2007 at 4:47 PM
It’s only genocide if there’s consensus…body count and demographics be damned
Ostrich logic…sociopathic, cowardly, ostrich logic
Ochlan on October 8, 2007 at 4:49 PM
Jimmy is past his expiration date and well curdled.
Spirit of 1776 on October 8, 2007 at 4:52 PM
I think the Left is slowly starting to realize that if they label Darfur a genocide and demand we take action there, the only action that makes any sense is military action. And this is obviously unacceptable to them whatever the conditions there because they hate our warmongering military, so hey, it’s not a genocide.
World B. Free on October 8, 2007 at 4:53 PM
Jimmy Carter is a lying piece of sh*t.
Start with that, and everything (including his hatred of Israel) follows.
The man who brought double digit inflation and mortgage interest rates of 16%, who CREATED the first Islamofascist state by overthrowing the Shah, who presided over the national humiliation of having our embassy invaded (lead by the current President of Iran), and our staff brutally held for 444 days, should be tossed into an insane asylum with duct-tape over his mouth while wearing a straight jacket, for the rest of his natural life.
georgej on October 8, 2007 at 4:53 PM
This doesn’t suprise me from the same Anti-Semitic tool who was cheering Hamas’ victory against Fatah during their skirmishes a few months ago. Sick bastard…
Bad Candy on October 8, 2007 at 4:54 PM
So, what’s he saying? A million plus have to die before it’s considered genocide?
I’m speechless.
Pulchritudinous Patriot on October 8, 2007 at 4:56 PM
A few years ago my wife and I were boarding a flight from Baltimore to Atlanta. We had the great misfortune to have Mr. Carter share that flight. He held up our departure for at least a hour and a half because he decided that the entire plane wanted to shake his hand. Knowing he was surrounded by SS types who have no sense of humor at all, I touched his hand and nodded. My wife was impressed at my self-restraint. I have been washing my hands regularly since then, which may be the only beneficial effect any of Jimmeh’s acts have ever had.
Out, damned spot…
Longhorn Six on October 8, 2007 at 4:56 PM
That should be “half an hour.” I get computers, but I can’t type.
Longhorn Six on October 8, 2007 at 4:57 PM
Wow. All fear the long memory of Allahpundit.
Carter has never been right when it comes to human rights. Go back to Habitat Jimmy and pound some more nails.
SouthernDem on October 8, 2007 at 5:01 PM
“If you read the law textbooks … you’ll see very clearly that it’s not genocide and to call it genocide falsely just to exaggerate a horrible situation I don’t think it helps.
This coming from the man, Carter, who claimed that a small rabbit swimming nearby a boat that he, Carter, was in was a killer rabbit trying to attack and eat him.
Go figure.
MB4 on October 8, 2007 at 5:05 PM
Legalese, Jimmah? According to international law, the U.S. embassy in Tehran was American soil, and you didn’t give a damn about that legalese – why give a damn about legalese now?
Sidenote: these Leftists make me want to vomit. I can’t even look at Hillary Clinton’s picture. She is the epitome of vile.
OhEssYouCowboys on October 8, 2007 at 5:05 PM
The U.N. commsiiosn found it was not genocide. Interesting, it meets the UN definition of genocide. Its not that f….g
hard:
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide
Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948.
Article 1
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
davod on October 8, 2007 at 5:07 PM
So proof that it is not genocide is that those accused of perpetrating it deny that it is genocide? It reminds me of a line from a first season ep of DS9, “What you call genocide, I call a day’s work.”
rw on October 8, 2007 at 5:09 PM
Above ground or below gound Mr. Carter needs to take a rest. He is now a legal scholar as well as bibilical and koranic. It all adds up to getting stupidier at a very rapid pace. What is the lucky number to define genocide and for people to start caring??? Mr. Carter go to France and retire….please
jimwesty on October 8, 2007 at 5:11 PM
I see Jimmuah is bucking for another humanitarian award.
Freak (with apologies to all freaks)
On-my-soap-box on October 8, 2007 at 5:12 PM
Has Jimmy Carter ever taken a position against anything an Arab government has done? Ever?
Dudley Smith on October 8, 2007 at 5:13 PM
The point that’s often overlooked about Darfur is that the killing is being done by Muslims of Arab descent, and the victims are Christians, Animists, and Muslims who just happen to be of African descent. (Who says that Islam is all about peace and brotherhood? The “brotherhood” seems contingent upon being part of the “correct” ethnic group, to judge by the evidence.)
And former President of the United States James Earl Carter, who started out as a high-minded fool, is now an apologist for people who apparently don’t care who they kill, as long as they get to kill somebody.
I am irresistibly reminded of a line from that master of the quip, Groucho Marx;
cheers
eon
eon on October 8, 2007 at 5:15 PM
Can you imagine the Nuremburg trials, if they were held now?
Prosecutor to Alfred Rosenberg: “Do you deny your writings which formed the blueprint for the Nazi repression, and ultimate extermination, of millions of Jews and Slavs?”
Alfred Rosenberg: “Yes. Yes, I do.”
Prosecutor to Judge: “The prosecution moves to dismiss all proceedings against Mr. Rosenberg.”
The Court: “Well, Mr. Prosecutor, had you not requested same, this Court would have dismissed all proceedings as a matter of justice. The proceedings against Mr. Rosenberg are hereby dismissed.”
OhEssYouCowboys on October 8, 2007 at 5:17 PM
To Carter, who is the epitome of inepitude, genocide in Darfur is just an example of birth control. How do people this obviously evil become elected to the presidency of this nation?
volsense on October 8, 2007 at 5:17 PM
If it were Christians killing Muslims, that would be genocide.
J. Carter
On-my-soap-box on October 8, 2007 at 5:21 PM
So are the Insane-O-Crats gonna go ahead and throw old Carter overboard now?????
ericire12 on October 8, 2007 at 5:21 PM
Worst. President. Evah
How did he get elected? Same way Hillary will get elected if republicans don’t start acting like conservatives.
Kini on October 8, 2007 at 5:23 PM
He is now a legal scholar as well as bibilical and koranic. It all adds up to getting stupidier at a very rapid pace.
jimwesty on October 8, 2007 at 5:11 PM
He who learns but does not think, is lost! He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger.
- Confucius
Build Jimmy Carter a fire, he will be warm for a night, set Jimmy Carter on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
- Sun Tzu’s nephew
MB4 on October 8, 2007 at 5:26 PM
I think you folks didn’t get the latest edition of the Progressive Dictionary of Moral Relativism. Here’s what it says about genocide:
Rampant murder perpetrated by Islamist government thugs against non-Muslims = NOT GENOCIDE
Israeli sneezes in general direction of Palestinian = POTENTIAL GENOCIDE, FORM U.N. SUBCOMMITTEE
Enrique on October 8, 2007 at 5:27 PM
Allah, I was about to argue with you until you made that last little point. I still will argue with you, but not to defend Carter.
I don’t think that a person should be criticized too much for using the textbook definition here, because that would mean (as an example) that it is not only okay, but a moral responsibility, to call Bush a genocidal war criminal if you believe it to be “arguably true”… it just opens the door to all sorts of asshattery. I would prefer a politically incorrect but literal reading of the laws, especially in a conversation that is largely a legal one.
Perhaps he should have focused his comments on what the legal definition of “genocide” should be, and maybe he should be open to criticism for not criticizing the definition that the world has adopted.
DaveS on October 8, 2007 at 5:28 PM
Allah,
In the PC world of these leftists, it is far worse to ooffffeeennndd than to kill 200,000 or so people.
mountainmanbob on October 8, 2007 at 5:28 PM
Oops… I think my comment got queued for moderation because I used the word “a–hattery”. I’m sorry. I wonder if I can say “assymetric”.
DaveS on October 8, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Let’s see some of Jimma’s nuance.
There is no genocide going on because it does not fit the def. used by the ICC.
But…
There are people operating with “genocidal intent”?
and pretty successfully I dare say.
Nuance.
themistocles on October 8, 2007 at 5:38 PM
To carry your theme:
It isn’t genocide? Give them time, don’t be so impatient.
right2bright on October 8, 2007 at 5:45 PM
It depends on who is in the white house…Belie dat.
tomas on October 8, 2007 at 5:57 PM
Does Habitat For Humanity build “showers”?
andycanuck on October 8, 2007 at 6:00 PM
What textbook was he reading, the Idiots Guide to Genocide?
moonsbreath on October 8, 2007 at 6:04 PM
I agree with Carter in two senses. It really isn’t genocide and the word is way overused. There were exactly four genocides in the 20th century: Turkey’s of Armenians, Nazi’s of Jews, Nazi’s of Gypsies, and Rwanda’s of Tutsis. What Pol Pot did was arguably worse than the genocides, but it wasn’t one.
Secondly, I do wish to minimize what is happening in Darfur. I figure it’s just muslims being muslims. Why should we care when they are killing each other? At least they aren’t killing us.
thuja on October 8, 2007 at 6:09 PM
Peanuts Is Good.
Limerick on October 8, 2007 at 6:19 PM
Attention village of Plains, Georgia:
Your idiot seems to have gotten loose again. Please come capture it and take it home.
Kowboy on October 8, 2007 at 6:26 PM
What a HUGE waste of flesh, air and toilet paper.
mustang1 on October 8, 2007 at 6:29 PM
I get the impression that people are responding viscerally to this statement due to a personal dislike of Carter, which I certainly share. He is attrocious. On the other hand, I’m not at all clear about what is being advocated. Armed intervention in Sudan? What, precisely, would be America’s strategic interest in such a course? Should troops be pulled from Iraq or Afghanistan to pursue such an intervention? Or is the hope that European nations, which seem distressingly shy about pursuing issues in their genuine strategic interest, might at least be shamed into intervening here on non-strategic, moral grounds? (As if getting them to do something, no matter what it might be, is better than simply watching them do nothing at all?)
Blacklake on October 8, 2007 at 6:35 PM
Me too. It’s an interesting question.
(1) Ford, while an underrated President, was charisma-challenged, and highly identified with the President who appointed him. Many voted against him purely as punishment for his pardon of Nixon.
(2) After Nixon, trust was a huge issue. At no other time would Carter’s self-righteous sanctimony have seemed like a virtue to so many voters. People actually believed him when he said “I’ll never lie to you.”
(3) Carter’s great weaknesses, his incredibly poor judgment and his spinelessness, were successfully concealed on the campaign trail. He was notorious during the campaign for speaking in generalities and avoiding specifics.
(4) He got crazy after he left office. He was a weak president and a poor president, but not, generally, an insane one. Something happened later to make things much much worse, and I’m not sure what it was.
Splunge on October 8, 2007 at 6:58 PM
But apparently Israel meets the strict, juridical definition of anti-Arab apartheid. Especially with how 10% of their parliament is actually made up of Arab parties voted in by the 20% of Israel’s citizens who are Arab – the granting of full voting rights of course being the classic sign of an apartheid regime.
omriceren on October 8, 2007 at 6:58 PM
I wonder how his peacenik minions are going to spin this.
Verbal Abuse on October 8, 2007 at 6:59 PM
You’ve got to be kidding.
Um, because you’re not a callous monster. Far be it for me to suggest something along the lines of military intervention, but their are innocent people being savagely murdered and before they are murdered many of them are viciously tortured. This includes children.
What wonderful insight into your true character.
SouthernDem on October 8, 2007 at 7:07 PM
Although the MSM was parsing every word that Rush Limbaugh said on a radio broadcast, the MSM ignored what Jimmy Carter said in a speech at Quinipiac University in New Haven, Ct. Carter was there to accept “The Albert Schweitzer Humanitarian Award”. The speech was taped and broadcast on Ct-N, which is the Connecticut version of C-Span. In the QandA, Carter was asked about Iran obtaining nuclear arms. Carter began by saying that Iran was not in violation of UN resolutions. Then Carter got truly insane. He said that to the extent that Iran might be attempting to obtain nuclear weapons, it was purely defensive. Carter stated that the Iran nuclear program (if they have one, according to Carter) was designed to protect Iran from American invasion. Carter said that Iran saw what happened in Iraq and wanted to protect itself. So, according to Carter, the US was the villiam and Ahmadinejad is an innocent chap who we should talk to.
Carter was just like the imbeciles on the extreme left who, during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, defended the Soviet Union placking ICBMs 90 miles from America. Once again, we hear the claptrap that AHmadinejad, like Fidel Castro and his Soviet masters, was only in a defensive mode.
But what it worse is that the Main Stream Media won’t publicize Carter’s shameful remarks. When Carter comes on Larry King on Tuesday, Larry King won’t ask him anything but genuflecting questions. Hopefully, Carter’s defense of Iran’s nuclear program will at least make it to youtube.
Larraby on October 8, 2007 at 7:12 PM
SouthernDem
I am with you Bro. He forgot about the Christians who are also targets. But hey, they are just Christians and do not count – right thuja?
On-my-soap-box on October 8, 2007 at 7:29 PM
Well, strangely enough, I observed one of the “humanitarians” so pumped up on Darfur intervention making this statement yesterday
There are no Christians in Darfur It’s 100% Muslim.
You can look it up at http://youtube.com/watch?v=BwrxPXvvaCs
And he is a knowledgeable, if not wise, source.
Maybe you should think before you fantasize evil of me.
thuja on October 8, 2007 at 9:18 PM
It was the Billy beer taking. . . .Right Jimmy
Texyank on October 8, 2007 at 9:41 PM
I hate typing . And yes I’m a two finger hunt and peck
type. . .Does it show : )
Texyank on October 8, 2007 at 9:43 PM
“Failed presidency” is such an extreme term – Jimmy prefers “moderately unsuccessful executive term”.
Mibrilane on October 8, 2007 at 9:54 PM
The plague of Carter is Georgia’s revenge to Sherman’s march to the sea. On a more serious note, Carter is a loathsome piece of snake$hit. His response that the Palestinian situation is worse than the massacre that occurred in Rwanda is pure stupidity.
dawgyear on October 8, 2007 at 10:06 PM
The African way is to play all ends against the middle and skim millions if not billions in international aid.
Al-Bashir and Deby Itno both benefit from the conflict in Darfur not to mention Jimmie Carter all great stuff except for the victims of genocide.
For American troops, getting involved would be a blood bath.
http://www.ramadji.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=153&Itemid=2
Speakup on October 8, 2007 at 10:43 PM
Kofi Annan holds views similar to Carter’s. The following quote from Annan is long, but necessary for the full context:
Carter and Annan and their ilk are reluctant to take a firm stand against mass-murdering thugs out of a misguided sense of neutrality. It simply can’t be the case for them that one side of a conflict is primarily to blame–unless, of course, we’re talking about Israel.
Bill Ramey on October 8, 2007 at 11:15 PM
Read my 5:07 PM post which includes the UN definitions of Genocide.
If the UN does not want to accept its own defintions as the basis for making declarations that fine. But do not be fooled by what are essential political declarations.
Genocide is what it is and if you look at the definition then Genocide is being committed by the Sudanese and their friends. Those supporting Sudan by trading with them are complicit.
davod on October 9, 2007 at 7:45 AM
Thank you S.Dem for that!
I read part of the transcript of the interview of Carter, it sounds almost like he simply wants to disagree with the White House, downplay the genocide occuring in Darfur so he can bring more attention to his precious Palestinians and what’s being done to them. Good Lord, Carter makes me ill.
4shoes on October 9, 2007 at 9:20 AM
MC, I kid you not – my Freshman year at oSu [1976] – I sat by somebody, who I knew from high school. I asked her, “Who are you going to vote for?” Her answer: “Jimmy Carter, he wears blue jeans.”
And the American electorate has gone downhill from there.
OhEssYouCowboys on October 8, 2007 at 4:47 PM
Similar story. A woman at work, in her 40s, recently told me that she votes based on what name goes best with hers. “Karen Clinton
or Karen Thompson or Karen Guiliani”. I told her to do us all a favor and leave important decisions to the grownups.
Clink on October 9, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Even if you’re a numbnuts who can’t do anything but apply basic definitions to problems, this still fits the g*damn bill!
This is a classic textbook case here, people…Arabic Sudanese Muslims killing off African Sudanese Muslims/Christians/Animists in the millions. The key if the fact that this is a racial AND religious cleansing (since this is also jihad to create their global caliphate).
How F*ING STOOPID is Cartah? Yet one more answer to that rhetorical question…
Miss_Anthrope on October 9, 2007 at 11:00 AM
I don’t have to fantasize evil from you, you did it yourself. The point is that you basically said, “Who gives a fuck, they are Muslims anyway so let them die.”
SouthernDem on October 9, 2007 at 4:22 PM
Comment pages: