UN sex abuse in Congo

InfernoMDM said:
dead ringer, I have read all that shit. I actually had to for class. It can be read 10 million ways. Hell I bet you can read shit in government and setup a conspericy that the evil govermnet is full of witches. I got a friend that swears up and down the US gov is controled by a fraternity called the "skull and bones." I had a prision camp out the back door of my work area in baghdad. Those bastards got treated better then the soldiers. I am taking all this with a grain of salt.

You do realize that the prison incident had been brought up several months before, by the DOD? No one covered it till the pictures leaked. Granted all they said was things were done, "were investigating."

QUOTE]

"those bastards...?" yes, i'm sure you personally did nothing to harm anyone, and that's great. this does not excuse what happened elsewhere when you were not involved.

how many ways can you read memos authorizing what happened at abu gharib becuase it is not "torture" as defined by the geneva convention, when it is exactly torture as defined by the geneva convention? deflect away to your friend's conspiracy theories - they have nothing to do with the fact that you are trying to impugn the entire UN while dismissing systematic torture authorized by high level U.S. officials. both are wrong. one of them arises to the level of the moral outrage you suppose exists. when a few undisciplined soldiers commit infractions they should be punished and they should be punished publicly. when torture is policy we do not just point the fingers at the troops who did it - we look as far up as we can, becuase those who make policy are ultimately the ones we want - you know, according to the law...

try. keep trying to blame the UN, france, and everyone else in the world except this administration for what is going on in iraq. i don't blame you or any other soldier for what they've been forced to do. i do blame the people who forced them to be there though and the people who are bungling this occupation.

Dead ringer they got free medical more food when soldiers were starving etc etc. These were not guys that were pulled off the street who just happen to be Iraqi. These guys are killers etc. Abu Graib was not a wonderful place, but I still havent seen anything that will prove that bush and admnistration said ohh go and torture people.

I didnt blame the UN for anything I think they arent guilty, I think they should put strict rules and punish people. I still cant see the UN going ok go rape. I havent seen the Bush admin do anything wrong in torture etc.

As for the geneva convention... the things that were done that everyone crys was torture, just doesnt look like to me. I havent looked into but I also heard that the US didnt sign the geneva convention. I'll have to check on it.

(by the way I make a destinction between the photos as torture, and not giving someone a clock as torture.)

Just my opinion on a very complex topic.

That's a fair statement...

While this one just ignores the standard applied to the first one.

I've heard many people say that the same douchebags who claim to never have read the articles of the Geneva Convention or regulations on prisoners' rights were adversely affected by memos written by White House officials. Never mind the odds of those retards actually having access to said memos. I figure that if they, dickhead 3rd-rate assholes that they are, got the memo, SOMEONE from the units I or my friends worked or dealt with--Military Intelligence, SOF teams, 82nd Airborne infantry, USAF security forces, USAF liaisons, etc.--would have gotten it as well. Nevermind, there's not a fucking CHANCE that a dozen idiots would have gone on a power trip while taking advantage of poor leadership and supervision--which their superiors were fired for, by the way.

On the UN side of the house, there's no WAY the UN can be mentioned as having at least some knowledge of this sort of thing going on. I mean, they haven't been tacitly accepting the thousands of (often forced, kidnapped) prostitutes working outside of their camps in places like Bosnia for years now. Nice double standard.

Oh, really? Gee willickers what was the UN defending in Congo or Bosnia? Forgive me if I assume that UN peacekeepers might just have to be held to the same standard!

I'm curious, what qualifies as a few? More, or less than the number of US servicemembers brought to trial?

What fucking pass? Three from the Abu-Ghraib bunch have alredy been brought up on charged and sentenced, with more on the way. The SEAL that tried to pass off the dead prisoner has been brought up on charges. No one pretends that military personnel are perfect--for that to happen, they'd have to come from a perfect society to begin with. When they commit crimes and they're caught, they go up on charges. What more do you want?

You're right, there is a difference here. As for me, I don't think Kofi Annan should apologize about things that are out of his control. I think he should ensure that those who should have had control over said events are held accountable, and that other shady things going on with the UN peacekeepers (again, Bosnia) are done with.

And you think the fuckmooks at Abu-Ghrain got that sort of language? For the record, the defendants themselves admitted that the people who supposedly gave them this sort of "encouragement" weren't even in their chain of command, often weren't of superior rank, and sometimes weren't even in the fucking MILITARY. And besides, for this logic to ring true, they'd have to belong in some sort of specialty that actually has something to DO with interrogations!

As for the Gonzales memo, here's my take on it:
1) Anyone could just as easily claim (especially given pt IV) that this is simply ass-covering in the case someone makes a serious challenge for the military's use of sleep and sensory deprivation.
2) Do y'all really, HONESTLY think that if Christians In Action decide to torture some poor soul that they'll give a flying fuck what Alberto Gonzales signed or didn't sign? Do you also HONESTLY think that it would be done in some place like Guantanamo or Abu-fucking-Ghraib?

The funny thing is that people have actually come out of Guantanamo screaming about exactly the sort of "torture" Gonzalez had in mind. Of course, even though the shit going on in Abu-Ghraib didn't come CLOSE to seeming anything like it (gee, I wonder why... cold hearted professionals trying to get info out of you via sensory and sleep deprivation versus a bunch of idiots on a power trip building up their photographical resume), it's now presumed to be evidence of the sort of agenda the White House is somehow invisibly pushing to Reservist military police units that ordinarily have nothing to do with interrogations.

Yup, they knew about it and, before it became a media item and the standard by which so many would hold the US military as a whole, they locked up/fired/press charges on the people involved.

Honestly, you'd think that Uncle Sam could find better torturers than Chip Frederick and his Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome reject-looking friends.

[Edited on Nov 28, 2004 by Phoebus]

infernoMDM, the U.S. is a signatroy to the genva convention. but even if it wasn't, the principles contained in it have risen to the level of jus cogens or normative customary international law, applicable to ALL states. the rules apply to regular and irregular combatants, as determined by the International Court of Justice in its contentious and advisiory opinions. you are most likely right that no one in the administration said "go ahead and torture." what they have done is argue that "torture" is not in fact torture, and even if it is, the convention does not apply where it clearly does apply. if you need specific provisions of geneva and/or the convention against torture i will look them up; i have them around here somewhere. there are clear distinctions and unclear distinctions. however, i think it is pretty clear that what the administration has tacitly advoctaed and systemicly implemented in numerous instances in its "war on terror" rise to the level of torture. again, i don't question your experience or the good will of you or the military, but i do question the administration's dubious policies and semantics games, just like i would any other state's policies. i happen to believe in strict adherence to international law as a means of maintaining peace and security, and the UN and its personell for the most part strive to ensure this. what many people do not realize is that the UN is always monitorring human rights violations and since 1945 significant progress has been made to make states accountable and transparent in how they treat combatants, and civilians nationally and internationally.

i find UN bashing to be an emerging trend among those who want to subvert international law in an attempt to push unfriendly agendas, extremism, and hysterical nationalism.

finally, throughout our history, the U.S. had traditionally been a champion of international law and human rights previous to the bush administration. this was our moral and strategic force during the cold war. reagan, bush sr., and clinton definately knew the importance of internationalism. bush jr. and the neo cons have great disdain for it and tend to rationalize their disdain only thru its rhetoric and jingoistic ideology.

I wouldnt jump to the conclusion Clintion was much of a moralist. I heard some nasty stories about torture going on during his 8 years. Far more then sleep depervation etc, that seems to be disputed by so many.

Your right we signed them all, but anyone got info on this statment?

"The U.S. ratified all the Geneva Conventions with the exception of the two protocols of 1977."

Well I know the UN has gotten a lot of bashing from more then people pushing unfreindly agenda's. Did you know they think no person should be allowed to own small arms of any kind. From shotguns to pistols, no hunting etc. I promise you the UN has had some other issues that have nothing to do with extremism.

If you get a chance can you find the info on torture in the geneva. Its not a big deal Im balls deep in work and really dont have the time.

As for torture I guess one persons torture is another persons interogation techniques. Many of these techniques seemed to be used by cops in the US and else where.

the U.S. has not ratified the 1977 protocols that deal with protections afforded civilians and the threat or use of force - that's true. it is a signatory to them with various reservations. however, the U.S. has behaved as if it has given them force of law and they have risen to the level of custom - which gives them binding force traditionally. the bush administration's contention is that they in fact have no binding force in definace of tradition. in any event, the pertinent provisions of the 1939 instrument (to which the U.S. is a signatory, and ratifying party) are relevant to torture but the new AG, alberto gonzales conteds that they are not applicable where i, the ICJ, and most experienced international lawers argue they clearly do apply. the administration HAS to insist they do not apply or tacilty admit being in violation. rumsfeld has all but conceded that the tactics at abu gharib were inappropriate, unprofessional, and not the traditional practice of the U.S.

again, while "torture" may not have been expliciltly authorized by the white house or the pentagon, they created the perfect environment for abuse to occur. it can certainly be argued that "intent" was not present here (although i think it was), "willful ignorance" is at best negligence on the part of the pentagon and at worst tacit approval. the fact that no civilian leadership at DOD was punished or even scolded would indicate that the administration approved of what happened which i find outrageous, embarassing, and entirely detrimental to U.S. interests and the goals the administration purports to aspire to in iraq and in winning the "hearts and minds" of the muslim world. perhaps they dont see it this way, or perhaps they don't care, but in any event they are in the position to know the consequences of their actions and should be held accountable. the fact that shit is rolling downhill here isn't my idea of leadership or accountability. if nothing else, i just with the administration would stand up and acknowledge its mistakes, failures, and potential violations. its goals can not be acheived by installing more yes men and further policies of deflection, denial, and dismissal.

[Edited on Nov 28, 2004 by dead_ringer]

No kidding. Is that why they charged those guys with crimes?

Which would be why people as high as the 3-star level were fired from their jobs. One of them, the Brigadier General (Kapynski?) in charge of the dirtbags in Abu-Ghraib resigned her commission. The worst they could have really charged her with would have been negligence. I imagine most of her company grade officers were also quietly dismissed, as well. Gen. Sanchez, the 3-star in charge of operations in Iraq, lost his job there, but will likely retire early because of all this. Or because Gen. Kapynski's middlemen didn't do a good enough job of sticking their own soldiers in jail ahead of time and letting her know what was going on there.

Why? Rumsfeld's planning for the occupation is certainly suspect, but do you really expect him to be responsible for the conduct of idiots on a power trip?

Which would be why they had identified and held the culprits at Abu-Ghraib before the story was even leaked. What kind of crazy torture operation is this? Or maybe those guys had nothing to do with what the US actually does when they want info. The kind of stuff the Guantanamo detainees have already talked about since their release.

[Edited on Nov 29, 2004 by Phoebus]

i'm sorry, but your argument presupposes that we don't hold responsible those at the top who either implement, tacitly approve of, and/or create the conditions necessary or sufficient for violations of international law. problem is, we customarily do hold them responsible. cutting lose or forcing out military middle management and even high level brass does not rise to the level of addressing fault and responsibility. you and i both know that the civilian leadership at the DOD makes policy for the military and they can make it damn clear with out explicilty stating that "we want to know everything they know about X, Y, and Z. get it from them..." again, the administration did all it could to place the blame as low as it could while appearing to take out some guys with lots of medals on their chests - effectively ending careers for implementing silent or even not so silent policies. if the administration and congress are truly interested in its purported goals of distributing western democracy to the muslim world it would not implement policies that contradict those goals, and incidents like abu gharib would receive more scrutiny and attention than just putting some scum-bag soldiers and inexpereinced MPs thru kangaroo court marshalls. if we want to be taken at our word, these abuses would not occur and the DOD would see to it that they did not occur. yes, at best, rumsfeld is responsible for stupid planning, an arrogant assessment of U.S. morality, and permitting conditions which opened the door for systematic abuse. more appropriately, he should have lost his job for all of this becuase he has jeopardized the stated goals of the administration. the fact that he has not lost his job only confirms that this is how the administation wants events to unfold or it will do everything it can to insulate itself from accountability for its transgressions. on a personal note, i go overseas often, and the fact that the administration has made it more dangerous for me to do so, is not my idea of sound policy, leadership, or ensuring my safety (at home, or abroad). the administration has not seriously addressed its failures and the more treacherous world it has enabled by its actions.

Perhaps I did not make my point as clear as I wanted to. They sacked a General and held the culprits for crimes before the story leaked.

I ask you again: what kind of crazy torture operations are you running when you fuck over the "middle management" before the story about their actions gets out? The Guantanamo stories have been out just as long. The government hasn't done much to either disprove or deny them. What's so hard about accepting the fact that what Gonzalez was writing about is ALREADY happening, and that what happened at Abu-Ghraib was hurtful, stupid, and unauthorized by anyone in the chain of command? Do you really think that, on one end, you have a multi-million operation in Guantanamo, and on the other you have Chip Frederick and Lyndie England, and that they're both part of the same agenda? How much sense does THAT make?

What exactly did you have in mind? No one tried to kill the story and it certainly has made the rounds... from papers and TV around the world all the way to Congress.

"An unfair trial in which the rights of the accused and precepts of justice are ignored and the outcome is usually known beforehand."
They fucked up. They were charged. They're being sentenced. If the outcome was obvious, one can only thank their enthusiasm for photography. What's "kangaroo" about that?

How do you suppose that would happen? Probably by setting up rules, and punishments for failing to obey said rules, right? It's kind of like crime in the rest of the world, I guess, where people fuck up and then get to do the time.

No, he would guilty of trying to usher in a new military doctrine based on smaller, lighter, more technologically driven forces capable of both invading and occupying. You don't have to agree with that doctrine (and plenty of military analysts and officers would agree with you), but I assure you that he wasn't trying to insert a lesson of good versus evil in there. You can at least trust your Secretary of Defense for that much: being a single-minded machine of war.

I agree. Ivan Frederick and that crazy little woman who unfortunately has probably already conceived his baby should never have been allowed to be either part of a military force or members of a department of corrections. Sometimes recruiters let idiots slip through the cracks.

I have no doubt that things are being done in Guantanamo (stress-inducing exercises, loud music, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation) that you disagree with. The fact that you choose to keep going after Abu-Ghraib, however, is what's humorous to me. One can obviously tell the difference between the things the US administration has shown MORE than tactic approval of, and the almost sophomoric (if they weren't so sick) actions of a dozen assholes in the middle of nowhere. No one can control the ass-clown factor all the time, and I wonder what your suggested remedy would be for the all too similar, all too frequently occurring events of this sort when they happen in civilian prisons.

PS: I'll be more than glad to continue this on Monday, PM. I'm already hating myself for staying up this late, what with a smoker of a PT session waiting for me 4.5 hours from now.

[Edited on Nov 29, 2004 by Phoebus]