Where's the outrage!

"Punished quickly."

Jog our collective memories and tell us when UN Peacekeepers were in Kosova. Keep in mind that it is, now, 2005.

All credit is due to those, primarily Liberal, voices that spoke out against UN sex scandals years ago, and yet we now find ourselves confronted with Liberal voices that praise the UN for their rapid response.

This is the point I attempted to advance: Liberals will, generally, undertake a torturous effort to resolve UN sins as actual virtues.

One may look to the UN, ideologically, as a world savior, but it is simply ridiculous to believe that they manifest this hope.

For once can the UN apologists come to grips with reality?

One World does not depend upon the institution of the United Nations, and to the extent that "One Worlders" excuse each and every horrific transgression of the UN, they reveal themselves more attuned to politics than ideals.

In this context it is useful to remember that the UN is merely a permanent association of sovereign states: an association thai enables them to act together in a practical way to solve problems when there is general agreement on how to proceed. Secondarily the UN provides for a continuous dialogue among nations with some supporting bureaucracies to provide certain continuing functions.

The UN is NOT a world government. Kofi Anan is NOT the President of the world. The recommendations of members of the Secretariat or even the Secretary General are NOT international law any more than are the resolutions of the General Assembly or those of the Security Council. There is a certain legitamacy to these pronouncements, however, so many have been issued on so many matters with so little consistency or action to enforce them, there is precious little of that legitamacy left either.

There is nothing binding on sovereign nations in the works of the UN. Any nation can withdraw, without penalty, at any time. International law is what sovereign nations agree to and are willing to act to enforce - nothing more.

I rest my case.

Many of you folks still seem unprepared to admit any wrongdoing. (Actually, that is not fair - it is a small minority of the right here who think like that - I just get so irked when I see it happpening, that I see your numbers as bigger than they are)


The UN, at least, accepted the actions of the soldiers in the Congo as sexual crimes, set up an investigation, and acted.

How has the UN NOT cleaned up the mess SOME soldiers of SOME member states committed?

And - actually - it is far harder for the UN to act given the complexities of the command structure, than it is for a state like the US to act against its OWN soldiers, which it took god's own sweet time to do - and failed to act until the thing hit the international media, and continued to hit it. NOW we are hearing of more and more murders of prisoners by US gaolers - 26 in Afghanistan alone, as far as I know, to date.

AND - the Abu Ghraib torture took place as part of an illegal invasion of a sovereign (if appallingly ruled) country (ably assisted in its awfulness by previous US support) NOT as part of a legal peace-keeping operation.

There is good reason to believe the mistreatment of US prisoners continues - as there is good reason to believe the torture outsourcing continues. Is anyone aware of the UN currently running sexual abuse camps, with UN hierarchy support and protection?


The behaviour of soldiers can suck, anywhere, any time. This is life.
I hear some of you defending the actions of your criminals in uniform - I do not hear the UN doing so for its criminals. I do not hear anyone here supporting the actions of those UN soldiers. There were threads about this at the time. There was outrage expressed. You guys just like to think that only Americans ever get condemned. You create a false either/or thing, which exists mainly in your own heads - (except for a few left nuts, ably matched by the right wing nuts - who use everything to advance their own idolising/bashing agenda.)


It is good that the US has court-martialled a few offenders, and that Bushco have backtracked in their public support of US interrogation techniques considered as torture by the US itself, until your government changed the rules for a time. It is good that a few soldiers are being tried for murder of an Afghani prisoner, and others for the murder of an Iraqi prisoner. I doubt this has solved the problems. (Not that the US is alone in such treatment - the countries in the ME who are your allies - like Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc. - are notorious torturers - as, sadly, are numerous countries worldwide - I think the US just attracts more attention for it because of the circumstances in Iraq and Guantanamo, and the export of torture to allies in the ME - and because of your country's position of loudly condemning it in others.)

I have no doubt the UN will be smirched by more misconduct by some of its soldiers in the future - and be guilty of weakness and dumb mistakes.

As far as I know, though, the UN has not condoned and deliberately practiced sexual abuse as a policy. I believe the US has done this with mistreatment of prisoners - including deliberately setting up an institutution like Guantanamo in order to evade its own laws about such things, as well as the outsourcing of the worst of its torture activities to allies, and continues to do so.




PS Finn - I have not the foggiest what you are talking about with your one world government, (except I know it is a conspiracy theory of some on the far right) nor what relevance it has here.

Source

More datails

dlowan,

You seriously strain whatever credability a reader may wish to concede to you. Your anti-U.S. bias and extraordianry inclination to see only good in the actions of others is quite beyond reason and understanding.

If the U.S. "supported" Saddam's government as you say (during the Iran-Iraq war) what would you call the actions of France? They sold modern aircraft, air to surface missiles, and a whole spectrum of individual and crew served Army weapons to the Saddam government - all in huge quantities. Most of the RPGs and like devices being used by the terrorists today against us were provided by France and Russia. In return Chirac got an exclusive contract from Saddam for the development of the huge undeveloped oil fields in Mosul. You cite none of this - instead you focus only on what we have done.

Our intervention in Iraq violated no law. That canard has been demolished numerous times on these threads. You may think it illegal (and that is your right). However no one has conceded your right to make and enforce law on others.

With respect to the sexual predations of peacekeeping forces, the UN has "launched an investigation". It has also "launched an investigation" of the venality and corruption of its officials in the oil-for -food program. However no real ACTION has resulted from either of these investigations. The brutal fact is that, in the absence of intense external pressure, the UN has repeatedly proven its inability to reform itself in any of the many disfunctional elements of its operation.

Odd that you consider yet another meaningless UN investigation action, while claiming that the United States is running "sexual abuse camps", despite the enormous gulf between the (inexcusable) actions of our guards in this instance and the horrors that occurred at the hands of the UN "peacekeepers", and, as well, the criminal convictions and imprisionments we have already voluntarily carried out against the perpetrators, compared to the meaningless UN "investigations"..

You have every right to your opinions about these matters. However the unreasonable, even mindless bias so evident in your views, and the extraordinary hypocricy implicit in your highly selective indignation makes it impossible for a reasonable observer to take you seriously.

Try again George - and read what I say.

I did NOT say the US is running sexual abuse camps - I DID say that the US IS running prisoner abuse camps. I contrasted the appalling abuse of children by UN soldiers, which I do not think you are actually claiming was UN policy, (are you?), with the institutionalized abuse of prisoners in US hands.

I was unaware this thread was about France. I thought it a rather trolly attempt by Brandon to foment dispute about what he sees (or claims to see) - as hypocricy re the UN of those who criticise the US. We can doubtless go through the world together and spend a long time condemning past and present behaviours of each country - and the UN - and the League of Nations - etc and find many abuses. I was attempting to answer the specific accusation made by Brandon.

I was pointing out:

a That there has been indignation re the UN, despite te imaginings of such as Brandon.

b That the comparison of bad behaviour by UN troops to the US prisoner abuses were incorrect, as there is ongoing US planning and institutionalizing of the prisoner abuse, and hence the US government in its ongoing behaviour is worthy of more criticism.

Yes - your bias is as clear to me - shrugs - so be it - we shall continue to consider each other as biased - though I am not aware of having used personal abuse to you.

Brandon, even, acknowledges that the UN has taken action, at the beginning of this thread - and some of the difficulties therein:

"In-Country Courts Martial?

Since the United Nations can't impose punishment on criminal peacekeepers, one possible solution to this problem is to establish courts martial for military personnel within the country where the peacekeeping mission is taking place. The home country of the accused peacekeeper would do the investigating instead of the country where the alleged activities took place, since nations such as Haiti and Sierra Leone have little semblance of any effective law and order system.

"These are countries that want to be viewed as [having] professional militaries. It is very difficult to conduct a legal inquest thousands of kilometers from where it happened because you don't have access to witnesses and chains of evidence are broken," the U.N. official told FOX News.

Adding another degree of pressure to the United Nations is the U.S. State Department.

American officials are pushing for a number of changes to require:

— Instituting advance training for U.N. peacekeepers that makes it clear that sexual abuse and exploitation will be quickly investigations and dealt with appropriately.

— Requiring troop-contributing countries to commit, in writing, to provide such training and to deal swiftly with abuse allegations and report back to the U.N. on the results.

— Establishing a roster of people who have committed sexual abuse or exploitation while serving with the United Nations, promising to bar them from future service.

"The United States takes its responsibility with respect to U.N. peacekeeping missions very seriously. I believe other Security Council members do as well," Kim Holmes, assistant secretary for the State Department's Bureau of International Organization Affairs, said during a recent House committee hearing on the issue.

"Sexual exploitation of civilians is intolerable and we will place its prevention and punishment as a top priority in all U.N. peacekeeping missions," Holmes said.

But perhaps the most effective way to root out this type of behavior, McClure suggested, is the intense media attention being given to peacekeeping abuses.

"The exposure of crimes will in and of itself cause states and the practice to at least slow down and hopefully stop," McClure said."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150798,00.html

"UN dismisses staff as Congo abuse inquiry continues

The United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUC) has suspended or dismissed 12 of its civilian employees as it holds an inquiry into the sexual abuse of minors.

UN spokesman Fred Eckhard says MONUC led the investigation into the actions of 17 people, three of whom were exonerated on lack of evidence, while a fourth is still under investigation.

Of the remaining 13, one has been summarily dismissed and is currently being prosecuted in France.

Another resigned rather than face disciplinary procedures.

"Six have been suspended without pay pending disciplinary action," Mr Eckhard said.

From the latter group, five are volunteers and their cases have been transferred to the UN Development Program.

In February, the UN announced that its troops in Democratic Republic of Congo had been ordered not to have sexual relations with Congolese, following revelations a month prior of sexual abuse of 13-year-olds.

Both soldiers and UN civilian employees were implicated."

These people should certainly suffer prosecution - however I believe the UN may not launch criminal prosecutions itself?

I am unsure what else you wish them to do to stop this terrible problem?

Member states ought certainly to prosecute their own people, no? And militaries court-martial their troops?

QED

DL - do you have a link, source, or any credible evidence at all regarding your charge that the United States is planning and institutionalizing prisoner abuse? Or is this just the imaginings of such as you?

It is not planning - it is ongoing.

You will find a wee portion of the reports here:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=47374&highlight=

Al Jazeera net has a story on it - based on a Washington Post article and also citing a (British) Sunday Times article earlier.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/03022C1D-AA16-4F6C-83FD-762C095A1219.htm


And this one: http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2004/11/29/terror_suspects_torture_claims_have_mass_link/



http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0726/p01s03-usju.html

And The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,665939,00.html

This is a tiny number of the many sources posted here by many others.

Your opinion, as expressed above:

"b That the comparison of bad behaviour by UN troops to the US prisoner abuses were incorrect, as there is ongoing US planning and institutionalizing of the prisoner abuse, and hence the US government in its ongoing behaviour is worthy of more criticism."

Yep.


You see, one of the main debate problems is that it seems the likes of you do NOT consider as abuse the confinement for years and years without charge - or even information as to charges - with what even the US admits is very unpleasant interrogation of people - (at the very least) placed away from the laws and rights you people so loudly trumpet you stand for and now say you invaded Iraq to gain - large numbers of prisoners - deliberately attempting to deny them any legal rights or redress.


This in itself is regarded as prisoner abuse almost universally - except by the right in your country - and - shamefully, in mine.

We abuse prisoners too, in our illegal immigrant detention centres - continuing to detain children despite court rulings deeming it untenable.

I think both our countries should be ashamed.

Are you denying that the detention of children and the increasingly testified about abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan as well - along with the now admitted transfer of prisoners to client states for interrogation (the torture hasn't been admitted to yet) is not institutionalised abuse?

I know you will not. Shrugs. So be it.

Nonetheless, I see you throwing around accusations of bias and brainlessness. I will not make such comments - but I do regard your condemnation as highly ironic.

Reports of sexual violebce against women in custody in Iraq:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1214698,00.html

Current Amnesty report on the current, and past, position of women in Iraq re torture, abuse etc.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE140012005


Arab activists' view - you may choose entirely to dismiss as biased, but it is another view, and worht a look , I think:

http://sumoud.tao.ca/?q=node/view/52

More on mistreatment of prisoners in other prisons in Iraq:

http://www.notinourname.net/war/torture-25jan05.htm

More about possible UN responses to its own filthy linen:

"United Nations Confronts Sex Abuse Claims


Email this story

Printer friendly format

By NICK WADHAMS
Associated Press Writer

March 16, 2005, 3:06 AM EST


UNITED NATIONS -- As the United Nations confronts claims of sex abuse on peacekeeping missions worldwide, officials say punishing soldiers may be easier than punishing civilians working for the world body.

Under current rules, soldiers accused of wrongdoing are sent home and punishment is left to their own governments who often do nothing, while civilians in similar circumstances can be sent home or face U.N. disciplinary action.

While much of the effort to stop sexual misconduct has focused on new policies for the 60,000 peacekeeping troops in 16 missions across the globe, United Nations deployments also have about 10,000 foreign civilians and civilian police who fall outside military rules.

"The problem with civilians is you don't have that same kind of command structure over them," Margaret Carey, the principal Africa officer in the Department of Peacekeeping said in an interview. "That's, I think, where the most creative and difficult work is going to be."

In February, two U.N. personnel in Haiti were suspended for having sex with a prostitute. In late January, a staffer with the U.N. refugee agency was arrested in Kosovo on allegations related to sex abuse and human and drug trafficking.

The United Nations has taken drastic steps to curtail abuses by peacekeeping troops. Troops have been ordered not to associate with civilians in Congo, which has seen dozens of sexual abuse claims. In Haiti, soldiers cannot even bring civilian clothes on their deployment.

The United Nations is also rethinking its rules for military peacekeepers, including the possibility that accused soldiers could be court-martialed in the country where the allegations of abuse were made.

But the political officers, public affairs workers, administrators and other civilians are not subject to such discipline. U.N. officials are still searching for more effective ways of enforcing a stated "zero-tolerance" policy.

Civilians in the peacekeeping mission in Liberia have been restricted from going to some clubs, but abuses continue, said Sarah Martin, a researcher with Refugees International who visited the West African country in December.

"What I'd heard from different staff people I interviewed was men just buy a house or rent a house and put women in there," Martin said.

The United Nations has not detailed the total number of abuse claims. While mostly soldiers, several civilians have been implicated -- and the allegations continue to emerge.

The claims are particularly damaging to the world body, which has been out front with efforts to stop sexual abuse. When the claims surrounding Congo broke last year, officials said they were determined to get it right.

Allegations of corruption and fraud in the oil-for-food program in Iraq have also battered the U.N.'s image, especially in the United States. A U.S. Congressional committee has begun investigating the abuse claims surrounding Congo.

Officials with several United Nations agencies said they are working to tackle the problem. Staff have been trained not to take advantage of the people they work with and to report abuse. Many have codes of conduct, though some of those are not mandatory.

"Somebody with a sack of flour has a lot of influence. Somebody with a food parcel can easily enter into an exploitative situation," said Ron Redmond, spokesman for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. "All of our staff have been trained to be aware that they are not to enter into these types of exploitative relationships.""

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-un-peacekeeping-abuse,0,7092122.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headlines

So, you're retracting your statement that the United States is planning and institutionalizing prisoner abuse?

Nope.

As I said above, to most people it is clearly evidenced in the mere existence of Guantanamo alone.

No surprise.

What would you call an Iranian Guantanamo keeping US citizens prisoner in similar conditions, JW?

Plus the evidence of abuses coming in from all over?

That's your "evidence" of a plan?

dlowan asserts the right to take anything out of the context in which it occurs, no matter how compelling may be the associated factors; to ignore utterly comparable and worse events by others, also ongong; to deny as inadmissable any inconvenient facts; and to cling to his/her beliefs against all reason - no matter what. OK by me. Just don't ask me to consider it as anything more than the ravings of a closed-minded fanatic.

Lol - prisoner abuse has a context which makes it ok?

This means that abuse of American prisoners is ok if another country considers the circumstances warrant it?

Part of it, yes.

What do you call setting up a place with no law? Accident?

I take it you refuse to believe the info about export of prisoners for torture? Hmmmmm - ok - American can do no wrong - ever - this seems to be your stock and store.

You believe all the other prisoner abuse is a few mavericks? really?

Anyhoo - this is a waste of my time.