Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

US admits searched Sudan embassy compound in Iraq

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 10:33 AM
Original message
US admits searched Sudan embassy compound in Iraq

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L18107130.htm

US admits searched Sudan embassy compound in Iraq

BAGHDAD, Jan 18 (Reuters) - U.S. forces searched part of the Sudanese embassy compound in Baghdad last week but only after requesting access from guards, the U.S. military said after Sudan complained its embassy had been raided by U.S. troops.

Sudan on Wednesday summoned the senior U.S. diplomat in Khartoum, saying U.S. troops had violated diplomatic conventions in the Jan. 13 incident.

On Wednesday U.S. military spokesman Christopher Garver said he "had no record" of any raid on the embassy. But a U.S. statement on Thursday said that information was given "in error".

"Coalition Forces soldiers entered the Sudanese embassy grounds in Baghdad Jan. 13," the statement said. "The soldiers entered the grounds after requesting entry to embassy guards."

"While in the compound, the soldiers encountered two locked doors for which the guards did not have keys. Following consultation with the guards, the doors were forced open.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
maddezmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
1. the article doesn't state who was guarding the embassy
contractors, Sudanese, Iraqi's, US Military?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
2. "Requested" entry. HA!
A troop of heavily armed soldiers "requests" entry of the embassy of a very poor third world nation. And the guards are supposed to have a choice as to whether or not to let them in?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eugene Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
3. Everything's okay. They "consulted" with the guards before breaking in.
This is very interesting since the U.S. denied the incident altogether yesterday.
Also, Sudan insists the U.S. troops overpowered the two Sudanese guards posted there.

From yesterday: Sudan says U.S. troops raided its embassy in Iraq - CNN

The embassy is closed, but it is still Sudanese soil. The troops should not
have gone there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
4. Nothing short of Orwellian.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
5. Apparently, there were only two Sudanese guards stationed at the embassy
If you're those two guys, and a couple armored vehicles and a bunch of Marines show-up and "request" access to your building...

Well, I know what I would do.

I'd step aside and call my boss on my cellphone.

"Hey boss... there's about fifty US Marines inside the embassy..."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bacchus39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. isn't Sudan the government that is committing genocide?
we certainly wouldn't want to inconvenience them now would we?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MemphisTiger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. I agree...
We get criticized for not intervening and if we do we get criticized.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. How 'bout we "intervene" legally, rather than illegally?
Maybe then we wouldn't get criticized.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. See in Wikipedia
<snip>

Darfur conflict

Just as the long North-South civil war was reaching a resolution, a new rebellion in the western region of Darfur began in the early 1970s, right after Africa's greatest famine. The rebels accused the central government of neglecting the Darfur region economically, although there is uncertainty regarding the objectives of the rebels and whether they merely seek an improved position for Darfur within Sudan or outright "secession." Both the government and the rebels have been accused of atrocities in this war, although most of the blame has fallen on Arab militias Janjaweed armed men appointed by Al Saddiq Al Mahdi administration to stop the long standing chaotic disputes between Darfur tribes. The rebels have alleged that these militias have been engaging in genocide; the fighting has displaced hundreds of thousands of people, many of them seeking refuge in neighboring Chad. The government claimed victory over the rebels after capturing a town on the border with Chad, in early 1994. However, the fighting resumed in 2003.

On September 9, 2004 the United States Secretary of State Colin Powell termed the Darfur conflict as a "genocide", acknowledging it as one of the worst humanitarian crises of the 21st century<2>. There have been reports that the Janjaweed have been launching raids, bombings, and attacks on villages, killing civilians based on ethnicity, raping women, stealing land, goods, and herds of livestock<3>. So far, over 2 million civilians have been displaced and the death toll is variously estimated at 200,000 <4> to 400,000 killed<5>.

On May 5, 2006, the Sudanese government and Darfur's largest rebel group the SLM (Sudan Liberation Movement) signed the Darfur Peace Agreement, which aimed at ending the three-year long conflict<6>. The agreement specified the disarmament of the janjaweed and the disbandment of the rebel forces, and aimed at establishing a temporal government in which the rebels could take part<7>. The agreement, which was brokered by the African Union, however, was not signed by all of the rebel groups<8>.

Since the agreement was signed, however, there still have been reports of wide-spread violence throughout the region. A new rebel group has emerged called the "National Redemption Front" (which is made up of the 4 main rebel groups who refused to sign the May peace agreement)<9>. Recently, both the Sudanese government and government-sponsored militias have launched large offensives against the rebel groups, resulting in more deaths and more displacements. Clashes among the rebel groups have also contributed to the violence<10>. Recent fighting along the Chad border has left hundreds of soldiers and rebel forces dead and nearly a quarter of a million refugees cut from aid<11>. In addition, villages have been continuously bombed and more innocent civilians have been killed. UNICEF recently reported that around 80 infants die each day in Darfur as a result of malnutrition<12>.

The people in Darfur are predominantly black Africans of Muslim beliefs, whereas the Janjaweed militia is made up of Arabs. Some believe the Janjaweed militia is the Khartoum government's unofficial fighting force, allowing the government to disguisedly break human rights rule in Darfur.


<snip>

Chad-Sudan conflict

Main article: Chad-Sudan conflict

The Chad-Sudan conflict officially started on December 23, 2005, when the government of Chad declared a state of war with Sudan and called for the citizens of Chad to mobilize themselves against the "common enemy," which the Chadian government sees as the Rally for Democracy and Liberty (RDL) militants, Chadian rebels backed by the Sudanese government, and Sudanese militiamen. The government of Chad claims that the militants attacked villages and towns in eastern Chad, stealing cattle, murdering citizens, and burning houses. Over 200,000 refugees from the Darfur region of northwestern Sudan currently claim asylum in eastern Chad. Chadian president Idriss Déby accuses Sudanese President Omar Hasan Ahmad al-Bashir of trying to "destabilize our country, to drive our people into misery, to create disorder and export the war from Darfur to Chad."

The incident prompting the declaration of war was an attack on the Chadian town of Adré near the Sudanese border that led to the deaths of either one hundred rebels (as most news sources reported) or three hundred rebels. The Sudanese government was blamed for the attack, which was the second in the region in three days, but Sudanese foreign ministry spokesman Jamal Mohammed Ibrahim denied any Sudanese involvement, "We are not for any escalation with Chad. We technically deny involvement in Chadian internal affairs." The Adre attack led to the declaration of war by Chad and the alleged deployment of the Chadian airforce into Sudanese airspace, which the Chadian government denies.

More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
High Plains Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. That has nothing to do with respecting the sanctity of diplomatic missions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. And law -US, international, or other- have nothing to do with the bush regime.
As the entire world already knows.

What a great "example" we are to the rest of the planet. :sarcasm:

Thing is, the minute anyone else follows in bush's footsteps ("abuses" US troops and/or civs, storms a US embassy, et al) Americans will scream bloody murder.

It's only ok when we do it. Unfortunately the rest of the world doesn't see it quite that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bacchus39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Sudan is leading the way in diplomatic behavior
if the US conducted diplomacy like Sudan, the world would be at peace. how is that for sarcasm?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
High Plains Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. We don't necessarily approve of the way China behaves, either.
Are you suggesting it would be okay to raid their diplomatic missions? Or the Iranians? Or the Venezuelans?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bacchus39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. oh, ok but a UN force or otherwise occupying Darfur would be perfectly acceptable correct?
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 11:56 AM
Response to Original message
10. Another US claim is exposed as a lie
but the US gives us another lie when it says it requested permission to enter the Sudanese facility. These people have never told the truth about anything!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
15. "request entry" doesn't mean got it. "Let us in" "no" bam!
"what's behind those locked doors, guards?"
"none of your business"
"Open those locked doors, guards"
"no"
"consultation over, break them"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC