High Speed Chase, Falsification

On Thursday, March 12, right after my last class of the week and therefore at the very beginning of my spring break, I decided to visit a friend of mine on Richardson Street.  I walked out of my house on Hamilton Street and proceeded to walk down Louis Street, towards Easton Avenue.  All was normal until I reached the intersection of Louis Street and Guilden Street, where I was greeted by a throng of students, families, and onlookers.  The section of Guilden Street located behind St. Peter's Hospital was roped off with police tape, and there was a generally frenzied atmosphere.  A friend of mine happened to be there, and he informed me that a bank in Franklin had just been robbed and that the robbers had just led the police on a high speed chase down Route 27, ending at the dead end of Guilden Street.  He had heard gun shots, and told me that shots were exchanged between the criminals and the police.  

Later, when I read about the incident in the newspaper, I discovered that my friends report was not far from the truth.  The high speed chase ended in New Brunswick, where shots were first fired by some of the 4 criminals, to which police responded with shots of their own.  Three of the suspects were shot, but all survived and will no doubt see significant jail time.  

Yesterday, I bumped into a fellow classmate of mine (we'll call him Matt) from high school.  We asked the usual questions ("What have you been up to?") and then got on the topic of this bank robbery and high speed chase.  According to Matt, the Bank of America in New Brunswick was robbed, the criminals were chased behind St. Peters, and three of the criminals were shot dead.

I didn't have the heart to correct him, since his story was told with such enthusiasm and awe.  After the exchange, we went our separate ways.

This anecdote is a great example of how information can be lost, changed, and completely mutated over time and across space.  My friend who experienced the event firsthand (at least the tail-end of the event) had more accurate information than Matt, and he probably got a cursory story from a police officer.  Matt, who had the benefit of seeing newspaper reports and general news coverage for 2 weeks after the incident, couldn't have gotten the details more wrong.  I assumed that rumors start from directly after an incident and then explode as time goes on.  Obviously, this is how Matt heard his fanciful and highly inaccurate tale.  However, my friend who was there for the action got the information all right.  Could a falsity such as Matt's have its beginnings in an account as accurate as the firsthand witness's?  It's hard to answer this, but one thing is sure: information has a tendency to become exaggerated and warped over time, as more and more people add their ridiculous views to simple events.

Storytelling with the help of an i-phone

During my break, I drove to Philadelphia and watched the Philadelphia Orchestra perform Stravinsky's Firebird Suite. After the performance, I had lunch with my friend and a member of the orchestra who I studied with the past two years, and occasionally still see. I had no intention of writing about this event, and it was not until a few days later that I noticed some interesting things about it.
He told us about the orchestra's recent tour - which took them to the Canary Islands and throughout Europe. Usually when I hear about or read about orchestra tours, the information is general, the speech is 'flowery', and the orchestra's amazing performances are thoroughly praised. However, in this experience, I heard little about these things. Instead, my teacher talked about a scuba diving excursion that he and other members took off the coast of the islands. With extreme enthusiasm, he told me about all the different fish he saw, chasing a baby octupus, and swimming with a massive school of fish. This was all very interesting, but to add to it, he showed me about 50 pictures on his i-phone, that added a picture to his words. While reading through First Time for class, I noticed that while Price uses archival documents and engravings to support the first time stories. In a parallel modern day way, I felt my teacher's story was supported and made more exciting by his i-phone pictures. Though this is nothing ground-breakingly-incredible, I just found it interesting to see how we support our experiences with modern technology.

Witness

During my spring break, instead of watching the pretty girls on the beaches of the carribean, I went with my church to Waveland, Mississippi to help the victims of Katrina. Hurricane Katrina raged a long time ago. I witnessed when I arrived at the site how devastated the location still is. We worked for four days but the work that needed desperately to be done will be far from over. From what the missionaries at the site were telling us, the workers were few. This weekend I volunteered to go up to the congregation and testify to what I had seen and experienced. Some of the memories were amazing, I never had so much fun. Some of the memories were troubling, people were desperate for relief, and the missionaries were scrambling to find replacements. I struggle to find the words to say this Sunday when I go to church. From the time limitations, will I be a witness to how wonderful the trip was or how devastated the people were there? It really brings into discussion how I want others to precieve the event, and how I want to remember the event. Both roles are important to me, the great bonding I had with my team members will be unforgettable but so would the face of suffering finally receiving some relief. I found it interesting how closely the subject at hand related to the discussions we have about the witnesses of the holocaust and the hidden gypsy suffering.

Spring Break

This spring break I visited my boyfriend in South Jersey. I really did not do too much that week except work on some projects and relax. The whole week I meant to go out with him somewhere, but we kept putting it off. Finally on Thursday, we decided to go out. After going to a few stores and eating at a Chinese restaurant, we tried going to the mall. The malls down there close early, so we decided to go to a Borders.

As we pulled up to the Borders and tried to find a parking space, we were surprised at how many people were inside and parked outside. As we walked into the Borders, we saw a sign about the Twilight release party at 10 pm. I turned to my boyfriend to ask what time and day it was, but the answer was apparent as we entered the Borders. As I looked down at my watch, it was 9:38 pm, and when I looked up, I was greeted by a long line of pre-teen girls and their mothers. I turned to my boyfriend with a look of utter horror and pleading in my eyes. Even though my boyfriend was feeling the same way, he was undeterred in his search for the book he *needed* to find.

As I wandered the aisles while my boyfriend went off in search of his book, I felt tension rising in myself and the crowd. A cheery employee of the store would make the announcement every 5 minutes of what time it was and when the Twilight party would begin. at around 9:55 my boyfriend came back empty handed without finding the book we came in search for. We promptly left the store and heard on the way out several frantic parents complaining that they ran out of wristbands for buying the DVD. We got into his car and drove back to his house, having a good laugh.

No doubt that other people in that store probably have a different memory of that night than my own. Although I had seen the movie, I was not interested in buying the DVD. The people in the store were fans, who were probably waiting for this moment all week and were very excited to be there. I, on the other hand, felt a sense of urgency and that I had to rush myself out of the store. The DVD release of Twilight can mostly be described in the public sphere as hate, love, or apathy. My experience in Borders was mostly personal and not the public opinion held by the majority there. If I had not gone to the Borders at that time, I probably would not of remembered it was the DVD release of Twilight and that moment would not be apart of my memory.

Over Break

Well, over break I didn't really experience anything interesting or anything that was life changing or that people would have different views about.... I guess one thing that was on my mind was what was the right thing to do in a situation. 

I am a nanny for the woman across the street from my house in Freehold, I watch her two kids about 2 to 3 times a week. Well the week before spring break her kids came down with the stomach flu and i did not work at all the week before spring break. Now Monday, her kids were still sick but with something else, one had a cold and a cough another had an ear infection and the runs from antibiotics. The hardest decision for me to make was whether or not I should baby-sit that week or say no.... Of course, because I am a softy, i baby sat and now i have their colds. So in my mind i thought that it was the wrong decision to go over because the house was just getting over the stomach flu and now there is a new illness that entered their home... Being a college student, you do not have time to get sick or even think about getting sick. 

Well, the event of the children's illnesses, to me was personal, i have a phobia about the Stomach virus, so hearing that information set me off the wall just thinking that i had to step foot into their house.  And because i did baby sit, i experienced it all with panic attacks haha... it was not fun.  I guess this event can relate to the public sphere by the way of looking out for ones safety and health. We sanitize our hands every day before we eat, touch our face, after we blow our nose, if we step off the bus. So the thought of being sick and having a phobia can affect anyone. This event can be opposed by people who don't have a care in the world, where getting sick to them is nothing and they live their life not being paranoid about things like getting sick. Can this event be historicized? No....

over break

Over break I went to the new gym in my town. It is the talk of our town because its huge, new and open 24/7! To see how it looks inside:
http://www.lifetimefitness.com/clubs/index.cfm?strWebAction=virtual_tour
honestly, this gym is nicer than some five star hotels I have been too! Everything is big, open and new. All over is stone or wood. I got there and we went to the lockers, where they provide you locks. There are a lot of treadmills and ellipticals, I didn't have to wait for one. There are two indoor pools that I swam in, two jacuzzis, sauna, and steam room, which we went to. The showers are lovely and they provide you with towels and shampoo and soap. We even went rock climbing. I experienced the gym first hand, and it changed the way I viewed the gym. At first, I just heard about it from friends, and I didn't think it was so special. But once I actually went there and saw it, I understood why everyone was so wrapped up about it. This experience can be considered collective for my town. This relates to the public sphere because I will be one of those people talking about how amazing the gym is, and without knowing it, I am giving a free advertisment. For the most part view on the gym is similar to the public view, however I know a couple of people how refuse to check it out and will stay at the other gym in our town. The gym wont be written down in history books and studyed in classes. However, for real estate, it is a postivie thing to write down and can make property go up.

Brodeur Breaking Records

Last night I watched the NJ Devils' hockey game, in which Martin Brodeur, the Devils' goalie, broke the NHL record for victories by a goaltender with the Devils' win against the Chicago Blackhawks 3-2. It marked Brodeur's 552nd win with the team. What was interesting to me about watching the game was the idea (echoed by fans, players, and announcers alike) that it might be a moment of "history-making."

The notion that history could be made at the event had many implications. Wieviorka talks about how the mode of the formation of history influences our collective memory of events and moments. Certainly, the way the camera operators and television station broadcast the game influenced the way I and other spectators will remember it. That it was set up as a potential moment of history ascribed to it a level of significance. We were, in effect, being told to pay special attention because it might become something worth remembering. If, at the end of the game, the Devils had not won and Brodeur had not broken the record, would I have just let my memory of the game fade into my general memory of hockey games I've watched? My guess is that I probably would have. But how did the experience of watching this game of potential history-in-the-making influence how I and others experienced it?

Firstly, the arena was sold out and the energy in the crowd and on the ice was palpable, even through a TV (large and HD probably helped). Throughout the whole game, there was a focus on Brodeur from all angles (in the game, on his history as a goaltender, about his recent injury). One of the announcers said that it seemed like the whole crowd gasped every time Brodeur got even close to touching the puck. What does that do to the psyche of the players? To Brodeur himself? Surely, the idea that Brodeur could very well break the record that night influenced the way the cameramen followed the game. Inbetween plays, shots of Brodeur were almost always editted into the broadcast.

At the end of the game, after Brodeur cut the net off of the goal as a souvenier with the help of his teammates, I was struck that so much of the glory went to him. It wasn't as if he had won the game on his own, after all. Now, I don't think that anyone necessarily believes that he did, but by the way the game was followed and the record defined as a singular acheivement, it could sound that way. Afterall, he was not the only star player during the game and though he prevented the Blackhawks from winning by blocking goals, he did not himself score the Devils' goals either. Notably, Patrik Elias passed the Devils' all-time scoring leader with his 702nd point in the second period. Though his acheivement was arguably of a smaller scale, I couldn't help but notice that it most certainly would have been a bigger deal (in terms of media coverage) had it not been overshadowed by Brodeur's "moment of history."

The announcers and media-coverage of the game, which was extended because of the Devils' and Brodeur's win certainly affected the way I (and everyone else watching at home) experienced and will remember the game. Knowing it could be important surely made me pay closer attention to the game overall, but most specifically, to Brodeur's goaltending, though I wonder how much choice I had in that matter, since his actions were heavily covered throughout. I'm sure the people at the game had a very different experience, one that was probably more emotionally charged. Emotion can certainly play a huge role in our memories - maybe even our ability to remember - as Weiviorka points out as a strategy used in the Eichmann trial. If the game is super-charged with emotion - before, during and after - will fans remember it better? Will a positive viewing experience bring watchers back to the TV station and/or the Devils arena? Surely, Brodeur's accomplishment was not just about hockey.

The evidence for President Bashir's arrest

I am writing this blog in response to the articles for Bashir's arrest, and the video interview by Ms. Hilsum. During his presidency, or what seems more like a dictatorship, millions have suffered. It is hard to believe how one man can make such a dramatic impact on so many lives. Intuitively speaking, it seems that the situation is hardly simple enough to claim one man orchestrated the death and displacement of millions. Yet the evidence is from relaible sources; the UN relief organizations, the interviews with darfur memembers themselves, etc. In contrast, Bashir in the face what seems to be insurmountable evidence, denies all accusations by either minimizing the amount of suffering, and claiming the evidence has bias against his reign.

I almost pity president Bashir. His country is left in ruins, and the entire world blames him for the death of his countrymen. With the level of atrocity and comparison to the Nazis, I almost want to believe his story, and, with his version of what is happening at Darfur, I am stricken with slight confusion. Is this man insane and living in another universe or is there a hint of truth behind it? Or is he simply just lying through his teeth, trying to cover up his tracks?

This brings me to the evidence. From my point of view, the stories seem to split between the media and president Bashir. The media has carried with it the testimonies of witnesses from the likes of UN officials, Darfur victims, relief agency memebers and many more, and as journalist witness for themselves and report on the latest story. It seems just quantitatively speaking millions of people claiming similar stories to one man's story. The witnesses make him seem as guilty as sin, even if you want to believe him out of pure pity.

Do Figure-Heads Detract From What is Really at Stake?

This week I am responding to the arrest warrant issued for President Omar al Bashir of Sudan regarding his crimes against humanity.

In thinking about the ideas testimony produces via how it is produced, I wonder if convicting al Bashir will really be that helpful. While the crimes of Darfur are terrible, and while one person can be held accountable, making al Bashir a poster-child for monstrosity seems ill-directed. In reading the new stories provided by the links, I get the sense many already feel this man is guilty. While I feel that he probably is, this defeats the purpose of a fair and unbiased trial. I think there needs to be a distinction between testimony for the purpose of conviction and testimony that seeks to elicit emotion. The Eichmann Trial sought the latter, and I feel the current trial is seeking to do both. There is an attempt to stop crimes against humanity and at the same time, expose others to what is really going on.

My issue is this: Even though Omar al Bashir may be the organizer of such crimes, it is impossible that he is the only perpetrator. Thus, he has become more of a figure and an example than an actual person standing trial. I think that in times of gross human rights violations, examples need to be made of people because it is too difficult, if not impossible, for all involved to be called out. However, I feel that placing the blame on a single individual takes the focus off of the crimes everyday civilians have committed in this situation. Rather than hating the neighbor who raped them, victims can now center all their anger on one figure. Placing blame on one person is necessary to bring justice when blame lays on the shoulders of multiple individuals. I just worry that with a villain identified, one who is already painted as someone with "no presence, no charisma, no charm, no magnetism", those who stand against him will forget
the atrocities committed by people who blindly, or knowingly, obeyed orders.


Quote from: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/the-banality-of-sudans-president/

Cambodian pictures

I viewed this link, the Cambodian photo essay:             http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/03/cambodia_and_its_war_tribunal.html. 

When looking at this photoessay, it wasn't the photos that got to me the most, it was reading the captions about the photos. 

When the captions explained everything about the trials, the victims, the genocide,the meaning of the 

picture came to life. When they showed the pictures of the bones, it did not strike any emotion in me, 

they were just pictures taken, possibly for archeological purposes. But, because they had a caption, there 

was more meaning to the skulls. Unless you knew the who story, then you would

be able to understand and possibly have some emotion attached to the picture that you see. I know the 

one picture and caption that got to me was the one where the men were looking for old land mines, and 

it stated that a family of three happened upon one and were killed. Just thinking about how tragic that was 

after the genocide was over, that people still have to fear for their lives. Comparing this

to our lecture last week, when we talked about listening to a tape from a holocaust survivor or reading 

their statement, i feel that a person will show more emotion, over hearing someone speak or reading their

testimonies, because the most powerful thing to me are the words. Describing in details what happened 

to you whether in a book or in a video or a tape recording, it portrays a lot of emotional and pulls on your

heart strings!! Looking at pictures on the other hand, such as those from Cambodia, they do not pull 

on your heart strings because you didn't know what they were about and what happened to those people

unless you read their testimonies.

Words are louder then pictures i believe. In words a person can communicate everything they are feeling

detail by detail. In a picture, you can just see so much. You can possibly see sadness, happiness, anger,

but it doesnt tell you what the person is thinking or going through unless you have information

and facts that explain the time period, and who the person is in the photo and when happened. I am not

saying that pictures don't say a thousand words, but i am saying that pictures can just tell you so much. 

And its not what is in the picture that gets to a person, it is the story behind the picture.

The Future of Global Criminal Prevention

This week I chose to focus on the recent indictment of Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir by the International Criminal Court-- an action that will surely reverberate throughout the world. If the charges stick, the seven year old council will have the ability to display its power as a worldwide preventer and prosecutor of crimes against humanity. The joint efforts of 108 nations will hopefully provide an unbiased trial for Bashir, whether he be found guilty or not guilty on the accusations of murder, extermination, rape, torture, forced relocation of civilians and pillaging. As we discussed in class, the verdicts of past events like the Eichmann and Nuremberg Trials were surely influenced by personal belief. The presence of the ICC may help to establish a balance for which to try future criminals among the likes of Hitler and Bashir. The United States is not currently a member and has not expressed its intention to join, however maybe one day all the world’s nations will be fortunate enough to have the opportunity to work hand in hand to bring about justice on a global scale. The charge of genocide has been strangely omitted from Bashir’s counts, maybe due in part to a lack of evidence or the ability to pursue such a severe crime. We have heard tales of the horrific events occurring in Darfur, and many people are doing what they can to assist those in need, but now the ICC’s actions demonstrate that those in power are also committed to end such travesties. By bringing this situation to light, it really puts a nation’s problems in perspective. However low Former President Bush’s ratings reached, we as a people never came anywhere remotely close to the level of fear of government that those in Sudan are experiencing. The ICC is doing what is necessary to stop the crimes of humanity that are currently happening in other parts of the world, and I can only hope that the outcome of Bashir’s trial will help prevent similar events from occurring in the future.

Forgotten Victims

I looked at the article about the horrors in Cambodia from the viewpoint of a Khmer Rouge member. While it is true the regime committed horrible acts against the people it ruled, people often forget that the regime's own members can be victims as well. In the scramble to figure out what happened and who should be punished, it is these people, the lower ranking members of the regime, that are often forgotten.

No one can deny that actions performed by Him Huy and others like him were horrendous. Lining up prisoners and hitting them in the head with an iron bar is never acceptable. However, at least in my opinion, the situation changes drastically when the "executioner" could just as likely end up on the other end of the iron bar. Mr. Huy speaks of eating lunch with co-workers, then that night seeing the same co-worker on the recieving end of one of the bars. In fact, he moved up to be a high ranking prison official for precisely this reason - those above him were arrested and killed.

The article discusses how Mr. Huy's friends, family, and neighbors do not hold his actions against him, and I agree with them. A former prisoner even commented that he had nothing against Mr. Huy, as the prisoner did not know what he would do if it was him. This is precisely the dilema that is so easily forgotten. If your job was to kill people, or be killed yourself, how many people could honestly say they would refuse to do their job?

It is this that shows the almost forgotten attrocities of the regime. Yes, killing millions of people are wrong. But is recruiting kids(Mr. Huy was 12) and then brainwashing them to assist in your evil any better? And just in case the brainwash is not complete, the regime members can just as easily find themselves the prisoners.

However, when speaking of the horrors commited by the regime, this often goes forgotten, or barely mentioned. In order to hold those responsible truly accountable, all their wrong doings must be brought to light. The absolute stranglehold regime leaders have over their own followers is often forgotten, and should not be. It is these people who are often the forgotten victims.

The World's Perception on Sudan

I have chosen to do my assignment on the international criminal courts and Sudan. I will first go into detail on the New York Time’s article and small clip called, “ Impressions of Sudan’s President.” Next, I will go into detail on the news stories of Sudan’s President Omar Al Bashir, and how this relates to  Wieviorka's book. Lastly, I will explain my personal experience with a survivor from Sudan, and how his life is perceived as a part of history.

Throughout the article, “Impressions of Sudan’s President” it became apparent that Sudan’s President showed no remorse throughout the years of genocide, rape crimes, and the destruction of his people. The President of Sudan states that the charges and accusations were “made up.” Nonetheless, I believe that the International Criminal Court will face pressure from the entire world to seek justice because this has been viewed in society as a “massacre” on innocent people. Which brings up the question: Will the President of Sudan receive a fair trial? Throughout class we’ve touch on the fact that the perception in the public sphere can have a big impact on vital decisions.
We also touch on Wieviorka’s point of view about how historical content structures everything. I believe the crimes in Sudan will finally get justice. On the other hand, many people fear that the indictment on Omar Al Bashir will result in more violence and hate crimes. In this article it states:
“Some have contended that an ICC indictment of the President of Sudan, which enforces international law and holds him accountable for his crimes, is necessary for sustained peace. Others are concerned that such an indictment could negatively impact the peace negotiations, prolonging war or perhaps even accelerating it – resulting in more deaths, sexual violence, destruction, and misery.” (http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/exeres/0EF62173-05ED-403A-80C8-F15EE1D25BB3.htm)

Either way the indictment of Omar Al Bashir” will be seen throughout the world is an example of a world leader being punished, and hopefully it will become a step towards progression for the people in Sudan. Overall, I believe the pictures, video clips, pod casts, and television send a strong message throughout the entire world. The material that is being shown from Sudan clearly shows the ongoing genocide that is happening. As a result, society only knows what they see through media outlets, and I believe this method will have a big influence on the decision of Omar Al Bashir’s indictment.

A good friend of mine in college, Ayuen (AJ) Garang was known on campus as a survivor of Sudan’s war. At first, I had no idea of his past history. We stood on the same floor together and immediately became friends. He was looked upon as an iconic figure throughout campus. It wasn’t until the spring semester that I had realized I was hanging out with a person who came from the struggle of Sudan. I remember it was the first day of the spring semester, and the professor wanted to know our names and what described us as a person. When the question was asked to Ayuen, he took out a piece of medal from his pocket, and said, “ My name is Ayuen Garang… and I am like this medal. Nothing can break me.” Ayuen can be compared to Holocaust survivors in many ways. The reason I say this is because in society he is viewed as a “survivor from Sudan,” and will be known as one for the rest of his life. The same can be said for Holocaust survivors as well because of the fact society perceives them as historical figures.

Conflict in Darfur

I watched the article here, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/06/world/africa/06sudan.html?_r=1, and watched the video inside of the article.

As is clear from this article and this video, we do not live in a black and white world. In my opinion, the Sudanese president Omar Hassan al-Bashir was guilty of "war crimes charges stemming from the conflict in Darfur". This indictment came from the "International Criminal Court, which was formed in 2002 with the idea of creating a permanent venue to pursue the type of war criminals who had emerged in conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda". The ICC has become a permanent venue to pursue war criminals, and I believe that Bashir should be pursued.

There is talk in the video saying that if Bashir was suddenly taken out, then the country would crack and collapse from his abscense. I think that is a poor reason to not pursue justice, the truth, and people taking responsibility for their actions. Just as Wieviorka argues, testimony can enters the public sphere through trials. These trials leave an imprint of those testimonies. Bashir is not only trying to avoid these criminal charges, but I think he is also trying to not allow the creation of a public sphere in favor of his enemies. By not allowing your enemies to have the smae public platform as you, you create an unfair advantage and are not taking responsibility for your actions.

Cambodia and its War Tribunals

I looked at Cambodia and its War Tribunals. http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/03/cambodia_and_its_war_tribunal.html

The first thing I could not help but notice is the length of time it took for trials to occur. These crime against humanity are now being taken up in trials three decades after they occurred. Its hard to believe that death of 1.4 million Cambodians look three decades to address and punish.

The site shows the numbers of bones that are just piled up and its disturbing. Human skulls and appendages are just arranged neatly in a pile, and I honestly wondered why the time was taken to do this.

Just as we have no smoking signs, there is a no laughing sign posted on a wall. I found it hard to believe that laughing, a way of expression joy and emotion, is prohibited. I couldn't help but to keep comparing it to signs we see everyday: no smoking; no turn on red; no u-turn; no laughing . . .one of these just doesn't belong.

Last week when I read articles and watched videos of Holocaust survivors, I remember reading something about how horribly intellectuals were treated. The same type of event occurred in Cambodia. Intellectuals were tortured and interrogated before they were killed and drown into mass graves.

There were also pictures of the fields of landmines, and soldiers attempting to find them. I'm not sure how landmines are generally found and recovered, but I found it surprising that they were using pick axes and shovels to recover a delicate explosive. The following picture was a man with a prosthetic leg at a rehabilitation center.

30 years after strict labor laws, executions, starvation, and torture due to the power of the Khmer Rouge, the country is still suffering with a destroyed agricultural system and extreme poverty being only two of their many problems.

Crimes Against Humanity

The idea of the President of Sudan being issued a warrant for arrest did not at first strike me with particular intrigue. I mistakenly assumed that it was just another corrupt politician. However, in reading further into the articles, that the news sites have posted, I realized that the situation was definitely a great deal more complex. The International Criminal Court is charging President Omar Al Bashir on 5 counts of crimes against humanity. This, in itself, is amazing to me in that the idea of a President being charged with anything that involves the safety of people seems extremely hypocritical. That a president would issue orders of "murder...extermination...forcible transfer...torture...and rape" (ICC), does not make immediate sense to me. I found in the interview in the pod casts from the "Voices of Genocide Prevention", that Judge Gabrielle Kirk McDonald stated quite clearly that "its important toward international criminal...that no one will be excused". In this way, I believe President Bashir will be used as an example as to what can happen to corrupt individuals. She says that even heads of states can be indicted. In this case, I have found the video testimony on the New York Times website to be efficient and important. In reading the text, Lindsey Hilsum of Channel 4 News in Britain writes in her blog that, "He had no presence, no charisma, no charm, no magnetism". I believe, in this way, that the video testimony becomes an important part of the trials. In a case such as this one, you are basically judging this man based on his character. In showing his demeanor, I was really able to get a better idea of what type of man this was, which I think will be important in conducting the trials.

So, Bashir... How do we see you from here?

I chose to read about the International Criminal Court (ICC)'s warrant of arrest for Sudanese President Omar Al Bashir. I read four articles in all and watched two small video clips by New York Times correspondents. I will comment on the first two, which included the video clips.

The first article, "ICC Issues Arrest Warrant for Sudanese President Bashir", was from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum website, under the Responding Today to Threats of Genocide page. Immediately I noticed that this arrest was described as a "historical decision" and a marker of history. The emphasis on history was apparent to me right away. The concerns of the USHMM were also quite readily apparent in the second paragraph: "Notably absent from the warrant is the charge of genocide." If Bashir is ultimately tried in an international trial, what does that mean for history? As Wieviorka quesitons, how does investigation or prosecution in trials work as a means of derriving history (65)? What would it mean, historically, for Bashir, as the current Head of State in Sudan, to be tried for crimes against humanity? Is it just a matter of precident, perhaps? Of setting Bashir up as an example to others? Or is it, like the Eichmann trial, a way of giving voice to those who have been silenced by violence? This is an answer we might not get to know unless/until we see the trial of Bashir.

The second article I read was from the NY Times blog, The Lede, called "Impressions of Sudan's President". This particular blog is a blog about other (sometimes past) blogs. I was struck by the comparison the writer, Robert Mackey, creates...

Ms. Hilsum writes about President Bashir in terms that echo Hannah Arendt’s famous “Banality of Evil,” about the trial of the Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Of her first interview with President Bashir, which took place a few days after he seized power in 1989, Ms. Hilsum recalls:

which is followed by a quote from Hilsum's blog. What is interesting to me about this exerpt is the contextualization of Hilsum's current commentary as similar to that of commentary from the Eichmann Trial - an association meant to draw parallels between Bashir and Eichmann, and thus, implicitly, between the two men's crimes... as that of genocide. What is also intriguing is Hilsum's current commentary being offered about an interview which she conducted 20 years ago. Wieviorka stresses how memory is recalled from within specific contexts... which makes me wonder how untainted by recent events/developments Hilsum's memory of the first interview is.

The two video clips were from this source as well, the first being halfway through the blog as an integral part of it (kind of a multimedia experience) and the other, a video entitled "Applauding the International Criminal Court" by Nicholas Kristof, I found from a link I followed to a NY Times Opinion page. I was a little disturbed by how much the "impressions" of Bashir written by Hilsum might affect the viewer's opinion of him in the video. In these videos I found a strong appeal to emotions. The first, which includes an interview of Bashir by Hilsum, shows her impassioned appeal to Bashir followed by his response, translated in a kind of deadpan voice. The quesiton of language, so often brought up in Wieviorka's text, came up here for me. We trust the documentary translator to be bringing us exact words and phrases, but in a context so politically and morally fraught, can we trust it completely to be unbiased?

Kristof's "video report" - as it is identified in the Lede blog - also appeals to emotion, showing disfigured refugee men and women, asking us to applaud the ICC's actions for the boy who's hands have been blown off by a grenade... I wanted to comment on this Opinion piece - and all "opinion" pieces - being widely included and accepted as a component of "News". It says a lot about the public's quest and the media's presentation (or selling) of "truth"-finding, the creation of history and collective memories. Will I remember Bashir from now on as the man who blew the innocent boy's hands off? That kind of history is very different from that offered by, say, the detailing of the arrest warrant in the press release on the ICC website. If the same news program were to cover the ICC's trial of Bashir, what kinds of images would be juxtaposed with the hearing? How would that affect public/collective opinion of his crimes and his guilt?

Tribunals Legitimate Both History and Memory

Tribunals are important because the people that are responsible for crimes against humanity must realize that they will be held accountable in some way at some point in their future. They are also important because as in any trial, both sides of a story are heard—most importantly the witnesses’ testimony because the accused's actions speak for them. Tribunals should take the form of the Eichmann trial because in cases where genocide and mass violence are concerned, the guilt of a defendant is generally unquestionable once they have been indicted. The point of the trial is not so much to prove guilt as to straighten out facts of the story and provide a narrative for public digestion, as well as make a political point. Another aspect of tribunals is the evidence of a changed political atmosphere. Tribunals in Cambodia and trials in Germany were inconceivable during the time in which the perpetrators were in control of the government and directly after their downfall. The very fact that a trial is underway means that the oppressors are out of power and now their victims have the power to seek justice through an unbiased legal system.

A tribunal sanctioned by the Cambodian government as well as the UN lends considerable legitimacy to the testimonies brought forth by witnesses. A blog about Khmer Rouge mass violence doesn’t have the same intensity or legitimacy of a witness’s court testimony because the emotional qualities conveyed visually aren’t as readily available through print. Also, writing about mass trauma isn’t restricted to survivors only. Historians or regular Joes can assume the role of writing about the Khmer Rouge’s crimes against humanity through second hand knowledge of the event. The status of a witness as a primary source makes their knowledge more valuable to those like Wieviorka who believe that memory and history must remain distinct, although the memory of the witness may be (unintentionally) incomplete or false.

We try so hard to reconstruct a version of the past constituted from snapshots of individuals’ life experiences and then separate the subjective and objective parts into memory and history, respectively. But this is impossible. History should just be universally recognized as being a product of a particular collective perception (facts, events), as well as individual perceptions within that collective, shaped by memory with all its faults. The receivers of history are not objective; humans have subjective experiences which cause them to react to information differently. So why does history have to seem objective when it really isn’t?