Amal at a Yazidi refugee camp in Greece today

I think all they can do is try, these women are the victims of isis that aren't heard from. I'm sure 
that they are all aware of the odds that this will change anything. Just letting the world know that 
they exist and what has happened to them gives them a voice.

I am going to take a stab at this. LizzyNY - I don't disagree with you that bringing actions in the courts feels as if it would be futile. But nevertheless I strongly believe it serves an important purpose. Daesh recognized no rule of law. Rules of war, human rights and indeed criminal law do not exist. It is very important in my opinion that as humans, from all parts of the world, we unite in underscoring the crucial importance of the rule of law. We don't give up. We don't say its hopeless or a lost cause. We work to shine a bright light on the evil that is done by humans when they abandon humanity and civilization - and the rule of law. And we do so on the international stage. It is one quiver in the bow for sure. Another is social media. And the most important in my opinion is the joining together of people of all faiths and creeds to celebrate our strength in diversity and our rejection of the message of hate spread by this organization.

And as Annemarie has said - it gives a voice to these victims. This is so important.

Oldweaton and annemarie - I agree with everything you both said. I think it's important for the civilised world to come together and assert that the rule of law must prevail and loudly condemn what ISIS is doing and what it stands for. I think it is important that those who are colluding with them for power or profit be shamed into changing their actions. I think it is crucial for the women who have been their victims to have a voice in the world and for their plight to be given the respect it deserves. All their victims deserve as much help as we can give.

I do not think, however, that any of this goes far enough to defeat ISIS or defuse the hatred that fuels them.

LizzyNY wrote:Prosecuting the Islamic State animals in international court for any crime is laudable and may make some people reconsider their ideas about "justified killing", but I don't see what practical use it really is. These men aren't going to come waltzing into court to stand trial and it's pretty obvious that if we were able to capture them we would have done so by now. The whole world has supposedly been trying to get them for years with no success. Why would we be more successful just because they were declared guilty in a court?

 Military force isn't working, and really isn't the answer unless we blow the whole region to hell - innocents included, since warning them we're coming kind of defeats the purpose - and is as bad, or worse, than what ISIS is doing.

I think George and John have the right approach. Get them through the banks so their money supply is cut off, but also pressure internet sites to shut out anyone who recruits for them or preaches their philosophy of death. Yes, I know I'm advocating stifling free speech but there are times responsibilities outweigh rights. We really are at war.

It is my truth in understanding the quest of ISIS and their partners of evil doers is to gain complete control of Global wealth.  To think they do not have a hand in the movement of global money is naive.  My stand to insist their actions are defined by the courts as homicide/murder holds them accountable to both religious and legal aspects of life.  If the courts take the position the occupation of ISIS in the region illegal, imposed death is murder, rape a crime, and their actions unjustified is a start.  Just to let you know, ISIS can not gain control of global wealth without overtaking Iran.  In that effort, China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and United States Oil/Corporate business will jockey to take control.
 
In order for us to be at war, a declaration of war has to be presented; no one, including ISIS has made a declaration of war.  "War" must be define, a declaration by persons involved made, a resolution regarding an end-goal presented.  My understanding is ISIS and their partners of evil doers believe they are the righteous, entitled to control Global wealth, and called by god to avenge what they perceive to be wicked:  that by definition is not war.  In truth, ISIS and their partners are wicked evildoers who steal, murder, rape, and destroy.

oldweston wrote:I am going to take a stab at this. LizzyNY - I don't disagree with you that bringing actions in the courts feels as if it would be futile. But nevertheless I strongly believe it serves an important purpose. Daesh recognized no rule of law. Rules of war, human rights and indeed criminal law do not exist. It is very important in my opinion that as humans, from all parts of the world, we unite in underscoring the crucial importance of the rule of law. We don't give up. We don't say its hopeless or a lost cause. We work to shine a bright light on the evil that is done by humans when they abandon humanity and civilization - and the rule of law. And we do so on the international stage. It is one quiver in the bow for sure. Another is social media. And the most important in my opinion is the joining together of people of all faiths and creeds to celebrate our strength in diversity and our rejection of the message of hate spread by this organization.

And as Annemarie has said - it gives a voice to these victims. This is so important.

 
You don't need to go to court to give these women a voice;  a military response to the rape accounts can NOT help these women.

Ladybug, I don't understand why you are tying together in your post above the court case on behalf of these women and a military response.  could you explain?

Military response is already happening, and it has nothing to do with the women being tortured by Isis. In what world would women getting raped get such a strong reaction? (I know I'm getting OT). When rape is being talked about, people find millions of ways to deflect, victim blame or downplay the severity of it, or add a 'suffering man' to the mix somehow. I was actually talking with someone about Nadya, and their response was 'She's lucky she survived to tell her story'. However I look at it, lucky isn't a word I'd use to talk about a victim of torture and rape, especially by anyone who's not the victim of such torture.

fava wrote:Ladybug, I don't understand why you are tying together in your post above the court case on behalf of these women and a military response.  could you explain?

I linked the two together because I want people to keep in mind, the serious impact to the region based on a "court ordered" military response.  Where the occupation of ISIS in the region is not found by the court to be illegal and killing is not clearly defined as homicide/murder. Rape is a serious offense, however it does not warrant a military response.
 
MY CONCERN: “Killing: not clearly defined as homicide/murder” and "rape" used in a case before the court, that could open the door for an "ILL” intended, “global” military response led by “evil doers” to gain control of the region.
 
ISIS has taken responsibility for mass murder across the globe, with no Council before the Court regarding their murderous actions.  ISIS does not work alone, they have partners. 
 
The truth is the “voice” of these women can be heard without a presentation before the court.   If they want to help Nadia, they will take a case before the court regarding the illegal occupation, murder, and rape by ISIS and their partners in the region.

I think what Amal and Nadia want is for the court to acknowledge what is happening , the rape kidnapping and enslavement of these women. By bringing evidence they can show that isis is guilty of these acts. And if the time comes and any of the bastards are caught they can be prosecuted for these acts. They want it on record what has happened.
They want Isis to be held accountable by the courts.

I don't believe that any military action will be taken over this , simply because it is women and Muslim women at that.

ladybugcngc wrote:

The truth is the “voice” of these women can be heard without a presentation before the court.   If they want to help Nadia, they will take a case before the court regarding the illegal occupation, murder, and rape by ISIS and their partners in the region.

Ladybug,

that clarifies it for me. So you want a combined trial for all of these crimes at the ICC?

This seems to be a good idea for me - IF these women along Nadia would be willing to wait a long time until ISIS will be prosecuted because they need evidence for every single prosecution. I just checked on Wikipedia (and don't forget, the ICC started in 2002 so it doesn't necessarily work very fast):

'Trial history to date

To date, the Prosecutor opened investigations into ten situations: the Democratic Republic of the Congo; Uganda; Central African Republic I and II; Darfur, Sudan; Kenya; Libya; Côte d'Ivoire; Mali; and Georgia.^[124] Additionally, the Office of the Prosecutor is conducting preliminary examinations in eight matters in Afghanistan, Burundi, Colombia, Guinea, Iraq, Nigeria, Palestine and Ukraine.^[125][126]
The Court's Pre-Trial Chambers have publicly indicted 39 people. The ICC has issued arrest warrants for 31 individuals and summonses to eight others. Seven persons are in detention. Proceedings against 25 are ongoing: nine are at large as fugitives, four are under arrest but not in the Court's custody, one is in the pre-trial phase, eight are at trial, and one is appealing his conviction. Proceedings against 14 have been completed: two have been convicted, one has been acquitted, six have had the charges against them dismissed, two have had the charges against them withdrawn, one has had his case declared inadmissible, and three have died before trial.
The Lubanga and Katanga-Chui trials in the situation of the DR Congo are concluded. Mr Lubanga and Mr Katanga were convicted and sentenced to 14 and 12 years imprisonment, respectively, whereas Mr Chui was acquitted.
The Bemba trial in the Central African Republic situation is concluded. Mr Bemba was convicted on two counts of crimes against humanity and three counts of war crimes. This marked the first time the ICC convicted someone of sexual violence as they added rape to his conviction.^[127]
Trials in the Ntaganda case (DR Congo), the Bemba et al. OAJ case and the Laurent Gbagbo-Blé Goudé trial in the Côte d'Ivoire situation are ongoing. The Banda trial in the situation of Darfur, Sudan, was scheduled to begin in 2014 but the start date was vacated. Charges against Dominic Ongwen in the Uganda situation and Ahmed al-Faqi in the Mali situation have been confirmed; both are awaiting their trials.'

One thing that would worry me about a combined trial like this:
It could end in a sort of diplomatic compromise, saying: I take responsibility for this crime but not for that, And maybe rape and sex slavery wouldn't be called as important as mass murder and could go by the board...

annemarie wrote:I think what Amal and Nadia want is for the court to acknowledge what is happening , the rape kidnapping and enslavement of these women. By bringing evidence they can show that isis is guilty of these acts. And if the time comes and any of the bastards are caught they can be prosecuted for these acts. They want it on record what has happened.

I don't believe that any military action will be taken over this , simply because it is women and Muslim women at that.

Annemarie,
I guess you're right.
Rape still seems to be a sort of trivial offence, even in our society: It's the woman's fault because she went to that party, she wore a short skirt, she drank alcohol and was dancing... And then she's discriminated as a w...e.


I remember I read a report a while ago about an American student who was raped by another student. The judgment was quite low 'because he's a good athlete' (I just wonder how this should influence the crime), and the father then wrote a letter to the judge asking for an even lower sentence 'for just twenty minutes of fun'.
The woman then wrote an open letter which really impressed me. It started: 'You don't know me, but you have been inside me.'

Sorry, it's quite off topic, but I wanted to share my thoughts about that with you.

I just hope that this never happens to me or my daughter...

It is a shame how women are treated not just by men who do these acts but by the court system..

John Prendergast in the Daily Beast interview....

'Rape is a tool of war'...........

I'm going as far as saying that props to Nadia (and Amal) for tackling this issue and bringing more attention to it. IMHO anyone asking why this case/issue and not that one or that other one is deflecting and steering away from the severity of rape as torture.

annemarie wrote:I don't believe that any military action will be taken over this , simply because it is women and Muslim women at that.

Agreed. Plus the fact that there is already a military action against ISIS and it has had only limited success. Adding rape to the crimes ISIS is charged with is logical, but it won't make the military effort any more successful.

carolhathway wrote:Annemarie,
I guess you're right.
Rape still seems to be a sort of trivial offence, even in our society: It's the woman's fault because she went to that party, she wore a short skirt, she drank alcohol and was dancing... And then she's discriminated as a w...e

Rape will always be considered a trivial crime by many men. They rarely associate sex with the kind of pain and violation a rape victim suffers, so they can't possibly know how it feels or how demoralizing it is.They enjoyed it, why didn't you? Until (if ever) that mentality changes and women are as equally respected as men, rape will continue to be considered something a woman should "get over" and move on.

That said, I'm also tired of women giving up responsibility for their own actions. If you don't want trouble, don't ask for it. Don't drink yourself into oblivion. Don't go places you know aren't safe. Don't dress like a stripper if you can't handle the kind of attention you'll get. (The Kardashians can walk around naked if they want to. They have bodyguards - you don't!) Yes, men need to know that rape is totally unacceptable, but women need to know that they have some responsibility for their own actions as well.

Lizzy I agree rape will always be considered a trivial crime by men. 

Rape has nothing to do with what you wear if that were the case babies and children wouldn't be raped . Neither would 90 year old women or nuns. Rape is about control , power that is what rapist take pleasure in.

I think women need to be aware of their surroundings at all times. Take precautions for their own safety.
My daughter and her friends don't leave each other they come together they leave together no matter what.

I also think that until the punishment fits the crime,  across the board meaning no matter what race or how wealthy, the rapist will get a long jail sentence maybe then things will change.

^

A good point, fava. Just because Amal has taken on Nadia's rape case doesn't mean they aren't tackling other issues too. Having said that, its a huge work load, and in order to do it justice and do it well, it might be better to not take on every war crime Isis has committed, and concentrate on Nadya's case.

I agree with you that this could bring more attention to the heinous acts that are taking place.

fava wrote:I think what many of these women have suffered is being trivialized by comparing it to the rape of college students.  It is organized sexual slavery, not an isolated incidence in their lives.   They are raped repeatedly by dozens of men over a long period of time.  


And, with respect ladybug, tackling the 2 things are not mutually exclusive.  Prosecuting the sexual enslavement cases does not prevent or take away from your potential murder cases--in fact it may aid it by bringing more attention to the atrocities being committed.

Prosecuting a case of sexual enslavement without clearly defining the occupation as illegal and the killing as homicide/murder can NOT resolve the rape problem.  The occupation of ISIS in the region is illegal; the sexual enslavement is a byproduct of the illegal occupation.  I have heard Amal Clooney speak about the wrong doing of rape in the region.  I have NOT heard Amal Clooney speak about the illegal occupation of ISIS in the region, nor have I heard her define the killing in the region as homicide/murder.
 
ISIS does not work alone.  The goal of ISIS and their partners of evil doers is to gain control of the region.  A court ordered military response based on sexual enslavement without clearly defining the occupation of ISIS as illegal and the killing as homicide can open the door for an "ILL” intended “global” military response led by “evil doers” to gain control of the region.
 
If Council wants to help those suffering in sexual enslavement and others in the region, they must first address the ILLEGAL OCCUPATION of ISIS and clearly define the killing that continues to persist as HOMICIED/MURDER.

Ladybug,
I guess that Amal didn't speak out against illegal occupation and murder in that region BECAUSE THAT'S SIMPLY NOT HER CASE. 

She's there to talk about the  crimes committed on her clients. If she'd start speaking about the other crimes, this could relativize the crimes of rape and being kidnapped and used as sex-slaves.
As I'd said before: 'At least you're still alive! So stop mourning and return to your life! Think about the many who have been killed, like your six brothers and your mother!'

Amal is simply doing her job the case she is handling is rape enslavement of these women . That is what Nadia asked for her help with. She can and should  what her client asked. Nadia's mother was killed because she would not become a sex slave so you can bet she is very aware of the murders that have and continue to take place.

At this point I don't think arguing over which crimes to charge ISIS with first is important. Let Amal and her associates file the rape charges. Let them, or others, file charges regarding the other crimes ISIS is committing - including murder , occupation, kidnapping and everything else. Follow the money and arms trail. Get it on record at the ICC that this is all criminal and that the civilised world disapproves. Prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law - BUT - in the meantime, do whatever is necessary to wipe them from the planet, because trying them in absentia does nothing and while we wait for the courts to act they will keep killing.

Totally agree Lizzy ending their reign of terror by any means necessary works for me.

Ladybug, it is my understanding that this court (ICC)t has no military powers? So unless I am wrong about that, I don't understand your phrase "a court ordered military response."  It investigates and tries war crimes.  Unfortunately, it has little or no effect on what is happening right now besides investigating and publicizing.  I believe even those indicted often cannot be forced to appear before the court if they are located somewhere that is not a party to the treaty.

If you want to see how effective the ICC is just look at Bashir. Other than putting a crimp in some of his travel plans, the court's ruling doesn't seem to have affected him very much.

..........and the ICC was set up by United Nations...........

Fava , your right I looked it up they don't have any military powers.