The Blog-O-Sphere Responds to the ICC Leaks (Alternate Title: Blogging Rulz)

Confession: I was once one of those quasi-wanna-be academic types that harbored a (baseless) prejudice against blogging.

But since shedding such absurd notions of imagined superiority, I've grown quite fond of the blog-o-sphere as a space for public debate and interaction. (And, occasionally, a certain character of gossip particular to political junkie-types.) With this in mind, tonight's post is a round-up of blogger conversation on recent developments at the ICC.

In response to my early-morning speculation that the leak might be intended to serve as a sort of warning/test-of-the-waters, Kate at Wronging Rights remarks:

"Word on the street (by which I mean the actual streets of the Hague, where international justice rumors flow fast and hot like so much raw sewage) suggests that this may not be far off the mark. The general consensus seems to be that the only question left unsettled is when, not whether, the arrest warrant will be issued."

Not gonna lie, I love validation...even if only speculative itself. (By the way, Kate and Amanda, I am wearing my t-shirt again today --- I washed it, I swear --- and have accepted numerous compliments on your behalf.)

Somewhat similarly, Mark at UN Dispatch added an interesting update to his post on the "very leaky" UN:

"UPDATE: On further reading, it seems that the NYT item that broke this story was datelined The Hague, not United Nations. This would suggest that the leak came from ICC, not UN sources, which adds another layer of intrigue."

At Inside the Beltway & Outside the Ordinary, Martha highlights a Q&A at the State Department, where spokesman Robert Wood dances around a variety of Darfur-related questions with significantly less tact or successful deflection than he would perhaps have hoped. (And, Martha, while I didn't wear them all day, and I am currently also wearing my Team Darfur sweatpants. I am quite the anti-genocide fashionista.)

From the organization blogs:

Genocide Intervention Network reiterates its support of a potential arrest warrant, but notes the tension with those who "fear the move could jeopardize the already undermanned efforts to bring aid to refugees or the still-fledgling UNAMID Peacekeeping operation."

At ENOUGH, Maggie Fick gives us a glimpse at a new strategy paper on the meaning of the warrant:

"The ICC's likely move could constitute the crucial missing ingredient to conflict resolution efforts in Sudan by providing justice and accountability for the horrific crimes against humanity that have been perpetrated by the warring parties in Sudan, primarily the Khartoum regime. Enough firmly holds that:

Peace without justice in Sudan would only bring an illusion of stability without addressing the primary forces driving the conflict."

Maggie also sets us straight on the difference between and indictment and an arrest warrant --- a lesson in legalese which I will (sheepishly) admit that I very much needed.

And there's more to come, for sure.