NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1413501,00.html

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/081zxelz.asp

I'm at a loss for words. With all the fuss about the Americans and the Brits and Abu Ghraib. Did this slip through the cracks?

Because UN rocks.

Because UN rocks.

Can't say that I agree with you, but thanks for the bump. No one seems to give a rip about the UN though.

Impeach him! IMPEACH HIM! IMPEACH HIM!!!
But only if his name is Clinton.

The UN can do no wrong, I see. :rolleyes:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1413501,00.html

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/081zxelz.asp

I'm at a loss for words. With all the fuss about the Americans and the Brits and Abu Ghraib. Did this slip through the cracks?

Since it has nothing to do w/ bashing America or Bush, nobody cares.

I've heard this elsewhere and read reports that the UN has been "investigating" similar scandals that go back decades.

I think no one is replying too much because your post isnt all that coherent. What exactly do you mean by 'slip through the cracks'...?

I don't think it is UN policy to rape little girls. Do you? I hope not.

Predators emerge where they can abuse the vulnerable. For example: sexual molestation by clergy.

The UN has been active in arresting these assholes as you can see from the articles.

It is not official UN policy. In comparison, the Abu Ghraib incident seems to be the result of US policy towards torture. The comparison isn't exactly fair.

UN policy. In comparison, the Abu Ghraib incident seems to be the result of US policy towards torture. The comparison isn't exactly fair.

You are correct. The UN abuses are much, much worse.

this is beyond messed up. People/countries with such dark skeletons in their closets should not point their fingers at other people!!!

I don't think it is UN policy to rape little girls. Do you? I hope not.

Predators emerge where they can abuse the vulnerable. For example: sexual molestation by clergy.

The UN has been active in arresting these assholes as you can see from the articles.

It is not official UN policy. In comparison, the Abu Ghraib incident seems to be the result of US policy towards torture. The comparison isn't exactly fair.

It has? The closest they've come is "suspending" two people and instituting a "code of conduct". Whereas "revelations come three years after another U.N. report found "widespread" evidence of sexual abuse of West African refugees.
", "Allegations of sexual abuse or misconduct by U.N. staff stretch back at least a decade" , and "it now appears, however, that little has changed on the ground".

Yep, they're doing lots to change things.

And the comparison is fair. The US had some asshats abuse prisoners, policy or not, and the world was up in arms demanding justice. The UN allows the systematic abuse of women and children occur by their own people and it is effectively swept under the carpet by the media.

Like I said, it has nothing to do w/ the US or Bush so the media doesn't care.

The French guy was arrested by French authorities under french law. The UN just sent him home.

I can't help but think of Vladimir Nabokov and his tactical anti-conservative psychological weapons.

Can the UN do anything right? Maybe it's time to disolve the UN.

It has? The closest they've come is "suspending" two people and instituting a "code of conduct". Whereas "revelations come three years after another U.N. report found "widespread" evidence of sexual abuse of West African refugees.
", "Allegations of sexual abuse or misconduct by U.N. staff stretch back at least a decade" , and "it now appears, however, that little has changed on the ground".

Yep, they're doing lots to change things.

And the comparison is fair. The US had some asshats abuse prisoners, policy or not, and the world was up in arms demanding justice. The UN allows the systematic abuse of women and children occur by their own people and it is effectively swept under the carpet by the media.

Like I said, it has nothing to do w/ the US or Bush so the media doesn't care.
The media have not swept it under the carpet, may I ask if not for media reporting how you came to know about this issue, I know that I knew about it due to media reporting. As for the US not being involved, actually that's not true.....allegations levelled include forced prostitution in Kosovo, American peacekeepers were alledged to have been involved in that for starters.

The comparison isnt helpful or relevent, it's as simple as that. The media have reported on the UN issue, it's not the media's fault that for whatever reason few people took an interest, nor do media continue to report issues of which no new information has become available. Media coverage of Iraqi prisoner abuses are not on every news bulletin, but rather occur as new develpments come to light. Neither incident caused the other, the manner in which the incidents manifested themselves are entirely different, as are methods of addressing the issue. The two issues are not materially relevent to one another.

this is beyond messed up. People/countries with such dark skeletons in their closets should not point their fingers at other people!!!

So, if we adopt this philosophy, then no one anywhere can question the conduct of another as every country has skeletons hanging around. I am just amazed how the US, England, and Australia are ridiculed and denounced when they find misconduct among their troops and deal with it publicly. When anyone points out that the UN has been doing much worse for years, was aware of it, and basically did nothing, then that person has no right to bring up this minor problem. If you all could get over your "I hate the US" rant long enough to look around, you'll discover that we are far from the bad guys on the block. We're not perfect, but at least we give it our best shot and take our lumps. We were sold out on the security council so that our "allies" could keep making money under the table through the oil for food program. We also took out a despot that the UN should have finished off in 91. Now we're going to see to it that the Iraqi people have their first real elections in almost 55 years. When they have a duly elected government, I can't wait to see how the UN will wiggle out of offering its support to Iraq...but I'm sure it will.

I'm tired of this! Keep on taking your cheap shots. I'm outta here.

So, if we adopt this philosophy, then no one anywhere can question the conduct of another as every country has skeletons hanging around.
Funny that you are aware of this and yet started this thread anyway...if you want to discuss problems with the UN, by all means, but if you for a moment imagine that this makes actions by other entities any less abhorrent, you are most definately mistaken, and yet that appears to be the tone of your implication in raising the issue in the manner you have.

I am just amazed how the US, England, and Australia are ridiculed and denounced when they find misconduct among their troops and deal with it publicly.
You must be joking me! When have entities ever not been ridiculed for their problems, whether they were attempting to solve them or not?

When anyone points out that the UN has been doing much worse for years, was aware of it, and basically did nothing, then that person has no right to bring up this minor problem.
So you now contend that we should adopt the philosophy of 'you cant point fingers unless you are perfect' or is it 'you can only point fingers if they are worse'? Either way, your contention is incorrect.

If you all could get over your "I hate the US" rant long enough to look around, you'll discover that we are far from the bad guys on the block.
If you could get over your persecution complex you might discover that people make perfectly valid compliants about the US and other entities for reasons other than hating them, for instance many people voice their legitimate complaints about the US for no reason other than the fact that the complaints are legitimate.

We're not perfect, but at least we give it our best shot and take our lumps.
Er and this is inapplicable to the UN because.....

We were sold out on the security council so that our "allies" could keep making money under the table through the oil for food program.
You were also opposed by the security council because there was a widespread opinion that no WMD would be found in Iraq...

We also took out a despot that the UN should have finished off in 91.
Considering the circumstances this is nothing to brag about. It was done for reasons of self interest and any incidental benefit this may have caused for others, is not relevent to right or wrongness of the reasons for the actions.

Now we're going to see to it that the Iraqi people have their first real elections in almost 55 years.
Aha, but not because of any particular interest in the well being of the Iraqi people, but as a flow on effect of an invasions that was initiated as a matter of self interest.

When they have a duly elected government, I can't wait to see how the UN will wiggle out of offering its support to Iraq...but I'm sure it will.
Well you are certainly entitled to an opinion, even an unsubstantiated one apparently based on personal prejudice.

I'm tired of this! Keep on taking your cheap shots. I'm outta here.
Which cheap shots? Like the first post of this thread?

Can the UN do anything right? Maybe it's time to disolve the UN.
you may be correct!!! Corruption and the UN seem to be synomonous anymore

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1413501,00.html

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/081zxelz.asp

I'm at a loss for words. With all the fuss about the Americans and the Brits and Abu Ghraib. Did this slip through the cracks?


Actualy Zooke, there have been a few threads about this already.

Can't say that I agree with you, but thanks for the bump. No one seems to give a rip about the UN though.

Wow! :(

It isn't that people aren't interested. It is that this forum has a high turnover and those who might be interested are talking about their fantasy resolutions in the UN forum.

Funny that you are aware of this and yet started this thread anyway...if you want to discuss problems with the UN, by all means, but if you for a moment imagine that this makes actions by other entities any less abhorrent, you are most definately mistaken, and yet that appears to be the tone of your implication in raising the issue in the manner you have.


You must be joking me! When have entities ever not been ridiculed for their problems, whether they were attempting to solve them or not?


So you now contend that we should adopt the philosophy of 'you cant point fingers unless you are perfect' or is it 'you can only point fingers if they are worse'? Either way, your contention is incorrect.


If you could get over your persecution complex you might discover that people make perfectly valid compliants about the US and other entities for reasons other than hating them, for instance many people voice their legitimate complaints about the US for no reason other than the fact that the complaints are legitimate.


Er and this is inapplicable to the UN because.....


You were also opposed by the security council because there was a widespread opinion that no WMD would be found in Iraq...


Considering the circumstances this is nothing to brag about. It was done for reasons of self interest and any incidental benefit this may have caused for others, is not relevent to right or wrongness of the reasons for the actions.


Aha, but not because of any particular interest in the well being of the Iraqi people, but as a flow on effect of an invasions that was initiated as a matter of self interest.


Well you are certainly entitled to an opinion, even an unsubstantiated one apparently based on personal prejudice.


Which cheap shots? Like the first post of this thread?
You appear to have touched all the bases in your reply.....good post!!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1413501,00.html

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/081zxelz.asp

I'm at a loss for words. With all the fuss about the Americans and the Brits and Abu Ghraib. Did this slip through the cracks?
Haven't there been like 10 of these incidents amoung various branches in the UN? I seem to remember something about Canadian blue berets.

Er and this is inapplicable to the UN because.....


You were also opposed by the security council because there was a widespread opinion that no WMD would be found in Iraq...

- OfF scandal

- Bullshit, the Russians backed the French and the French opposed us because they had their whole fucking arm in the pie.

I think the name of this thread is a misnomer in that the UN doesn't condone sexual abuse.

As far as trying to compare it with the illegal US invasion of Iraq is nonsense.

Also, two wrongs don't make a right.

Haven't there been like 10 of these incidents amoung various branches in the UN? I seem to remember something about Canadian blue berets.
You seem to remember? Source please.

- OfF scandal

- Bullshit, the Russians backed the French and the French opposed us because they had their whole fucking arm in the pie.
I am certain you cannot substantiate such a claim...in fact the evidence available seems to indicate otherwise.

Abu Ghraib was in a US military installation. This was in some guy's house. I think the UN shouldn't be responsible for what some person is doing at their own property while the US military should be responsible for what was done on their property.

Very good point Poptart.

I think the name of this thread is a misnomer in that the UN doesn't condone sexual abuse.

And the U.S. doesn't officially condone torture, but based on generalized media reports and the grilling Condi Rice got earlier this week, you might think they did.

As far as trying to compare it with the illegal US invasion of Iraq is nonsense.

I see no attempt in the original post to compare this to the invasion of Iraq. I also take issue with your use of the term "illegal." As I read the U.N. general resolutions and the Congressional resolutions, the invasion was perfectly "legal." On the other hand, whether it was "wise' or "advisabile" (SP?) or the morally correct thing to do is another issue and one where we would probably agree (i.e. I think it was "legal" but not adviseable and only borderline morally acceptable).

Also, two wrongs don't make a right.

I agree with this statement, from a moralistic standpoint anyway. Legally, I'm not sure since that which is legally right and that which is morally right, have nothing to do with each other (whether they should or not is another debate for another thread).

Bottom Line, as I read the original post and interpret the intent, I come to the conclusion that the issue is why hasn't the general media made as much of an issue of this as it has the Abu Ghraib situation? On the other hand, I could ask why hasn't the media made as big a deal out of the corruption in the food for oil scandal either. I don't know and won't pretend to answer. All I see is a failure to offered a balanced outlook and a willingness to condemn U.S. actions and promote our short comings while overlooking the same in others. I think this is the point of the original post.

And the U.S. doesn't officially condone torture, but based on generalized media reports and the grilling Condi Rice got earlier this week, you might think they did.
Officially off the record it does? There was an awful lot of finger pointing in regards to interrogation methodology that was being used by US troops and many of the fingers pointed right to Rumsfeld. There were many earlier discussions and stories on these threads that indicated a higher level of responsibilty for the inappropriate actions in Iraq.

I see no attempt in the original post to compare this to the invasion of Iraq. I also take issue with your use of the term "illegal." As I read the U.N. general resolutions and the Congressional resolutions, the invasion was perfectly "legal." On the other hand, whether it was "wise' or "advisabile" (SP?) or the morally correct thing to do is another issue and one where we would probably agree (i.e. I think it was "legal" but not adviseable and only borderline morally acceptable).
There wasn't comparison in the original post by Zooke, but her post # 15 certainly is laced with comparisons.

I agree with this statement, from a moralistic standpoint anyway. Legally, I'm not sure since that which is legally right and that which is morally right, have nothing to do with each other (whether they should or not is another debate for another thread).

Bottom Line, as I read the original post and interpret the intent, I come to the conclusion that the issue is why hasn't the general media made as much of an issue of this as it has the Abu Ghraib situation? On the other hand, I could ask why hasn't the media made as big a deal out of the corruption in the food for oil scandal either. I don't know and won't pretend to answer. All I see is a failure to offered a balanced outlook and a willingness to condemn U.S. actions and promote our short comings while overlooking the same in others. I think this is the point of the original post.
I guess the biggest problem here is that the US invasion of Iraq was not sanctioned by the UN and the consequences appear to be that the US is being held accountable on a higher level for the actions of their troops for they manner in which they are "liberating" Iraq.

Bottom Line, as I read the original post and interpret the intent, I come to the conclusion that the issue is why hasn't the general media made as much of an issue of this as it has the Abu Ghraib situation? On the other hand, I could ask why hasn't the media made as big a deal out of the corruption in the food for oil scandal either. I don't know and won't pretend to answer. All I see is a failure to offered a balanced outlook and a willingness to condemn U.S. actions and promote our short comings while overlooking the same in others. I think this is the point of the original post.
The fact is torturing people is worse (and thus more 'sensational' story-wise) than financial corruption, (as per Oil for Food).

The situation with the UN has recieved media attention.

I can think of many reasons why the coverage (of the UN scandel) is superceded by that of the Abu Ghraib incident, and not one of them involves or requires a willingness to condeme US actions and promote US shortcomings while overlooking the same in others.

You seem to remember? Source please.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/UN/peace.html

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/archive/index.php/t-4101.html

http://boards.marihemp.com/boards/msg1x76999.shtml

http://www.montrealmirror.com/2004/111104/news1.html

I am certain you cannot substantiate such a claim...in fact the evidence available seems to indicate otherwise.
I assume your referencing the Volker whitewash here?

The fact is torturing people is worse (and thus more 'sensational' story-wise) than financial corruption, (as per Oil for Food).

Considering the financial corruption involved things like spoiled supplies for the iraqi people and weapons manufactured barely months before the US attacked that were subsequently used against US troops, I have to disagree.

I assume your referencing the Volker whitewash here?
You assume wrong, I am referring to my doubt as to your ability to substantiate your claims.

You assume wrong, I am referring to my doubt as to your ability to substantiate your claims.
And your "evidence available" is?

The Weekly Standard isn't really the best news source...

Considering the financial corruption involved things like spoiled supplies for the iraqi people and weapons manufactured barely months before the US attacked that were subsequently used against US troops, I have to disagree.
You are welcome to do so, however if you genuninely feel that sadistically causing pain and humiliation to others for fun is not worse than uncaringly risking pain to others, I suggest you are in a minority in that regards.

Whilst not caring about the effects of your pursuit of profit, is abhorrent, it is still significantly less evil than torturing people to get your jollies, and since it is the contention of authorities involved that any torture in US custody was on an individual basis and not authorised or encouraged for functional reasons, the only rational left is that people were torturing human beings for the sheer 'pleasure' of it.

The available evidence is that the justification on which the invasion was posited appears entirely false now, just as it did before the invasion...

You are welcome to do so, however if you genuninely feel that sadistically causing pain and humiliation to others for fun is not worse than uncaringly risking pain being to others, I suggest you are in a minority in regards.

Whilst not caring about the effects of your pursuit of profit, is abhorrent, it is still significantly less evil than torturing people to get your jollies, and since it is the contention of authorities involved that any torture in US custody was on an individual basis and not authorised or encouraged for functional reasons, the only rational left is that people were torturing human beings for the sheer 'pleasure' of it.
You bring up a rather interesting philisophical point. Is it worse to take pleasure in the suffering of others, or to ignore others suffering as a direct consequence of your actions if your actions are in some way profitable to yourself.

You bring up a rather interesting philisophical point. Is it worse to take pleasure in the suffering of others, or to ignore others suffering as a direct consequence of your actions if your actions are in some way profitable to yourself.
A point that appears to already have been decided by the majority or at least one would think so considering how most legal systems treat the two.

Regardless the point of my point is the sensationalism of such occurances, if there is any doubt that financial scandels are less 'newsworthy' than sadism, I can only suggest you dont consume much media. I hold that it is worse to hurt someone just because you want to hurt, than to risk hurting someone in the pursuit of gain, but even if it is not worse, it is still more 'sensational' and so will recieve more media attention. You can only blame consumers and the free market for that...

You bring up a rather interesting philisophical point. Is it worse to take pleasure in the suffering of others, or to ignore others suffering as a direct consequence of your actions if your actions are in some way profitable to yourself.

Taking pleasure in anothers misfortune is often called schadenfreude. Least it is where I came from.

If I won 80,000 from a man in a game of poker he might also subsequently lose his house, job, wife and kids. However that is not my moral concern but his and I would not pity him. Never stake more than you can afford to lose.

Upon the showing of the cards I would be pleased to win, yet not take delight in the fact he lost.

Those who yell "woot! in your face!! owned!!" when they win a game are bad sportsmen and enjoy schadenfreude rather than the victory itself, it is the mark of a childish ego.

To answer directly: Schadenfreude is much worse morally and ethically speaking than ignoring suffering brought about through mutually direct consequences, provided something akin to the above cards scenario is true. If not, i'd say they were about equal.

I knew better than to leave the discussion last night. Where do I start?

Funny that you are aware of this and yet started this thread anyway...if you want to discuss problems with the UN, by all means, but if you for a moment imagine that this makes actions by other entities any less abhorrent, you are most definately mistaken, and yet that appears to be the tone of your implication in raising the issue in the manner you have.
You must be joking me! When have entities ever not been ridiculed for their problems, whether they were attempting to solve them or not?

I thought it was evident that the point of this thread was to discuss UN problems, and, in view of the multiple threads on US prisoner abuse, why this was getting little or no attention. I was not claiming that the US should not be criticized for the abuse, but questioning why that issue receives constant attention while UN issues are given minimal attention.

So you now contend that we should adopt the philosophy of 'you cant point fingers unless you are perfect' or is it 'you can only point fingers if they are worse'? Either way, your contention is incorrect.

No, I prefaced that comment with “So, if we adopt this philosophy” in response to Rutziland’s “People/countries with such dark skeletons in their closets should not point their fingers at other people!!!” I believe it is clear that I was disputing Rutziland’s comment through example.

If you could get over your persecution complex you might discover that people make perfectly valid compliants about the US and other entities for reasons other than hating them, for instance many people voice their legitimate complaints about the US for no reason other than the fact that the complaints are legitimate.
Er and this is inapplicable to the UN because.....

Again, I was referring to the almost rabid attack on every action (mistake or not) made by the US or an American to the point of almost totally ignoring problems within other entities. I tried to initiate a discussion on the mounting problems at the UN and the general shortage of coverage by the media. Instead this topic drew the comment
“It is not official UN policy. In comparison, the Abu Ghraib incident seems to be the result of US policy towards torture. The comparison isn't exactly fair.” Obviously, some cannot put aside their obsession with the US to consider any other issues.

You were also opposed by the security council because there was a widespread opinion that no WMD would be found in Iraq...

Then why were there UN weapons inspectors in Iraq? Why were there 17 UN sanctions?

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm

Security Council

SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,
OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)

Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days,
Recalls Repeated Warning of ‘Serious Consequences’ for Continued Violations

Holding Iraq in “material breach” of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a “final opportunity to comply” with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991).

Considering the circumstances this is nothing to brag about. It was done for reasons of self interest and any incidental benefit this may have caused for others, is not relevent to right or wrongness of the reasons for the actions.

Aha, but not because of any particular interest in the well being of the Iraqi people, but as a flow on effect of an invasions that was initiated as a matter of self interest.

If by “self interest” you mean the invasion decision was based on a popular belief that Saddam had WMD and had made it clear he wished to do the US harm, then yes we did act in our own interests, and justly. If you are under the impression we did it because of Iraq’s oil fields, then answer one question…why am I paying almost twice as much at the pumps as I did before the war? Iraq’s oil production is a drop in the bucket compared to the US demand.

If the US was not concerned with the well being of the Iraqi people and the hope of peaceful relations between Iraq and the world at large, we would have pulled out as soon as Saddam was captured and let the Iraqis reorganize by themselves. The work and sacrifice of the coalition nations will ultimately be a benefit to all nations. This goal would be more easily attained if certain nations would get involved instead of criticizing from the sidelines, but some of us are “doers” and others are “whiners”. Apply as warranted. I heard a pundit make an interesting point the other day. Democratic nations do not go to war with each other.

Well you are certainly entitled to an opinion, even an unsubstantiated one apparently based on personal prejudice.

I have offered the logic and sources I use to formulate my opinions in counter to your unsubstantiated claims.

Which cheap shots?

You may believe that questioning the multitude of problems within the UN are cheap shots, but a number of people do not. I believe that the UN is as accountable as any other entity for its actions and should be as open to discussion and criticism.

Like the first post of this thread?

No, like your post and similar others that attempted to hijack this thread and turn it into yet another anti-American rant.

Actualy Zooke, there have been a few threads about this already.

I did multiple searches before starting this thread, but got no hits on this topic. Am I just search impaired or is there a trick to using NS’s search engine?

Abu Ghraib was in a US military installation. This was in some guy's house. I think the UN shouldn't be responsible for what some person is doing at their own property while the US military should be responsible for what was done on their property.

The actions of a representative of any agency, while functioning in that agency’s behalf, should be the responsibility of that agency. Just as it was the responsibility of the COs of the troops involved in prisoner abuse to monitor and control their subordinates’ activities, it is the UN’s responsibility to monitor and direct their agents’ activities. Worse, the UN has been aware of this problem and has taken no real measures to stop this abuse. It is interesting to note that the US military was investigating and documenting the abuse claims before the public was aware of them, and had already shipped the accused back to the states. The US military has continued to address this problem through criminal prosecution and punishment. The people who committed these crimes were of low moral and intellectual capabilities. While I am sure that the US, as well as most other governments, sanction questionable treatment of enemies of national security, I seriously doubt they would have employed the use of these dimwits. They would no doubt employ individuals that at least have the sense not to take pictures of their escapades.

Bullshit, the Russians backed the French and the French opposed us because they had their whole fucking arm in the pie.

True, and as the oil for food investigation continues, this is becoming more and more apparent. While the US has already started airing its dirty linen by trying and convicting a US citizen for involvement in this scam, France, Russia and Germany are still turning their drawers around backwards and pretending they don’t stink.

Bottom Line, as I read the original post and interpret the intent, I come to the conclusion that the issue is why hasn't the general media made as much of an issue of this as it has the Abu Ghraib situation? On the other hand, I could ask why hasn't the media made as big a deal out of the corruption in the food for oil scandal either. I don't know and won't pretend to answer. All I see is a failure to offered a balanced outlook and a willingness to condemn U.S. actions and promote our short comings while overlooking the same in others. I think this is the point of the original post.

Thank you, you explained it so much better than I.


There wasn't comparison in the original post by Zooke, but her post # 15 certainly is laced with comparisons.


That was my angry response to a growing attempt at a thread hijack, not an argument based on the original intent of this thread.

Ill explain things in a simple way:


Sex abuse by Peacekeepers:
The UN asks for help for peacekeeping ops.
Member countries send in their soldiers as peacekeepers
If those soldiers screw up, the UN can only ask their country of origin to send them back, as the UN as no authority over soldiers of any country.


Sex abuse by UN staff:
Expell the staff from the UN and tell local authorities about it.

Now explain to me what did you wanted the UN to do?
- They can't exactly prossecute the peacekeepers, that is up to the country of their origin.
- They can expell their staff, and they have been doing so.

Ill explain things in a simple way:


Sex abuse by Peacekeepers:
The UN asks for help for peacekeeping ops.
Member countries send in their soldiers as peacekeepers
If those soldiers screw up, the UN can only ask their country of origin to send them back, as the UN as no authority over soldiers of any country.


Sex abuse by UN staff:
Expell the staff from the UN and tell local authorities about it.

Now explain to me what did you wanted the UN to do?
- They can't exactly prossecute the peacekeepers, that is up to the country of their origin.
- They can expell their staff, and they have been doing so.

The idea is to discuss this problem within the UN, especially in light of other issues that have come up recently, how they happen, how to take steps to prevent their happening again, and possibly, the validity of the UN in general. The UN is a huge malfunctioning organization and we either examine its failings and correct them, or it continues to be as much a problem as a solution.

Can the UN do anything right? Maybe it's time to disolve the UN.

I second the motion

So, if we adopt this philosophy, then no one anywhere can question the conduct of another as every country has skeletons hanging around. I am just amazed how the US, England, and Australia are ridiculed and denounced when they find misconduct among their troops and deal with it publicly. When anyone points out that the UN has been doing much worse for years, was aware of it, and basically did nothing, then that person has no right to bring up this minor problem. If you all could get over your "I hate the US" rant long enough to look around, you'll discover that we are far from the bad guys on the block. We're not perfect, but at least we give it our best shot and take our lumps. We were sold out on the security council so that our "allies" could keep making money under the table through the oil for food program. We also took out a despot that the UN should have finished off in 91. Now we're going to see to it that the Iraqi people have their first real elections in almost 55 years. When they have a duly elected government, I can't wait to see how the UN will wiggle out of offering its support to Iraq...but I'm sure it will.

I'm tired of this! Keep on taking your cheap shots. I'm outta here.

Tell'em Zooke. Tell it like it is!

I think the name of this thread is a misnomer in that the UN doesn't condone sexual abuse.

As far as trying to compare it with the illegal US invasion of Iraq is nonsense.

Also, two wrongs don't make a right.

They may not condone it but they don't take steps to stop it.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/UN/peace.html

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/archive/index.php/t-4101.html

http://boards.marihemp.com/boards/msg1x76999.shtml

http://www.montrealmirror.com/2004/111104/news1.html

Missed one about the Canadians

http://www.freedomdomain.com/un/disturbpeace.html

Was a MSNBC page now a copy is being hosted on freedomdomain

Some other countries

http://www.ssrc.org/programs/gsc/gsc_quarterly/newsletter5/content/graybill.page

http://www.womenagainstrape.net/dark_side_of_peacekeeping.htm

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1287926/posts

Though I do ( I can believe I am saying this ) have to admit the UN appears to be trying to put down these activities.

I just hope that they have better luck in the future in eliminating this type of crime.

The UN in and of itself isnt bad, but some of the actions that have happened under the UN authority is reprehensable and should be prosecuted.

While the UN does not have authority to prosecute the Peacekeeping troups I note that some of the troops come from nations receiving UN aid, perhaps withholding that aid until justice is served in their native countries will result in prosecutions

Respecfully

AAhhzz

There were many earlier discussions and stories on these threads that indicated a higher level of responsibilty for the inappropriate actions in Iraq.



So you use these threads here on NS to tell you what is really happening in the world? You are a prime example of the superiority of the Canadian educational system.

I saw a while back on NS that Bush was actually responsible for the tsunami. I guess it's true since it was posted here on NS!

The UN in and of itself isnt bad, but some of the actions that have happened under the UN authority is reprehensable and should be prosecuted.


Isn't it reasonable to assume that the UN is a worthy organization, but that its leadership, or lack of, is the root of its problems? I don't believe the UN should be eliminated. It could be a wonderful international force for good. But, as it is now being run, it is an embarassment.

Considering the financial corruption involved things like spoiled supplies for the iraqi people and weapons manufactured barely months before the US attacked that were subsequently used against US troops, I have to disagree.
Interesting thing about the oil sales scandals - now that the Bushies have used it as a weapon against the U.N., it come out that American individuals and companies benefitted as much as anyone, and that the US government knew for a loooooong time.

Isn't it reasonable to assume that the UN is a worthy organization, but that its leadership, or lack of, is the root of its problems? I don't believe the UN should be eliminated. It could be a wonderful international force for good. But, as it is now being run, it is an embarassment.

It is a worthy organization but it needs to be revamped. Take out its leadership and give it some teeth then maybe the UN will become worthy again.

Interesting thing about the oil sales scandals - now that the Bushies have used it as a weapon against the U.N., it come out that American individuals and companies benefitted as much as anyone, and that the US government knew for a loooooong time.

Proof that we knew about it for a long time please? As for our end of it, they are being prosecuted while other nations aren't as far as I know.

Bottom Line, as I read the original post and interpret the intent, I come to the conclusion that the issue is why hasn't the general media made as much of an issue of this as it has the Abu Ghraib situation? On the other hand, I could ask why hasn't the media made as big a deal out of the corruption in the food for oil scandal either. I don't know and won't pretend to answer. All I see is a failure to offered a balanced outlook and a willingness to condemn U.S. actions and promote our short comings while overlooking the same in others. I think this is the point of the original post.

Because the UN, by American political standards, is a liberal organization. Most of the news midia is liberal. Liberals will not attack liberals but they do not hesitate to attack anyone who is not liberal. :(

The fact is torturing people is worse (and thus more 'sensational' story-wise) than financial corruption, (as per Oil for Food).

Worse than rape and child molestation? Equal maybe but not worse.


[/QUOTE]The situation with the UN has received media attention.[/QUOTE]

Only the Oil for Food has received a reasonable amount of media attention. The rape and pedophilia has not.

Proof that we knew about it for a long time please? As for our end of it, they are being prosecuted while other nations aren't as far as I know.

Exactly. Just this last week an American citizen was tried and convicted of his involvement in the oil for food abuses. More prosecutions are scheduled, and investigation of connections to this guy by some of our elected officials (republican and democrat) are ongoing and publicized. Can anyone source another country that is aggressively pursuing this?

Exactly. Just this last week an American citizen was tried and convicted of his involvement in the oil for food abuses. More prosecutions are scheduled, and investigation of connections to this guy by some of our elected officials (republican and democrat) are ongoing and publicized. Can anyone source another country that is aggressively pursuing this?

I know I can't source another country doing it because nothing has been said. Hopefully the people responsible in other countries will be prosecuted too, just like we're prosecuting our people that were involved in this scandal.

I knew better than to leave the discussion last night. Where do I start?

Damn that was great. Congradulations.

OK Zooke, so besides expelling the soliders responsible and dealing with the internal issues, what exactly do you want the UN to do?

I mean, the US refuses to join such a thing as the world court, or to join any international initiative, unless their soldiers are exempted from facing charges no matter what they do. The idea being that the US feels equiped to handle such cases internally. Saddly, the US is not the only country that feels this way which is why the rules were put in place for Peacekeepers. These rules virtually ties the hands of the UN regarding how they can hadnle this issue.

Clearly these people violated laws and policies and the UN has tried to deal with them as they arise. Putting stricter policies in place serves little purpose as people inclined to break the laxer rules would have no compunction about the same for the tougher ones.

Do we change the rules to allow international legal culpability for peacekeepers? Then the UN would have even fewer countries signing up.

Do we abandon peacekeeping entirely? While it has had it's failures it has also had it's fair share of successes. Frankly, I think it still has a place and a function.

To my mind the biggest problem has been the unwillingness of western countries lately to get involved with manpower. Most of the countries putting forward most of the peacekeepers these days are third-world countries with their own fair share of human rights abuse issues. Expecting soldiers from countries with poor attitudes towards women and from a life under corrupt military juntas are, I think, more likely to take advantage of being in a position of authority and abuse it.

Yes, this has a problem with some peacekeepers. Clearly by the changes to regulations and the internal discussions that have been held the UN recognizes it as a problem and is trying to deal with it. And clearly from the articles noted, in conjunciton with some of the abuse stories out of Iraq with both US and British forces - this seems to be a wideflung issue with military sources from almost every country. And that no country or body has come up with an adequate solution yet.

Frankly, I think part of this is a side-effect of training people to be agressive and ruthless, and also from the fact that many soldiers often adopt a mindset where their opposition is somewhat subhuman. This, I think, is a psychological technique to assuage the conscience if you have to kill any of them. If they are less than you then you need not be as concerned about them. Unfortunately, aggressive and ruthless people are still needed in the world sometimes.

Anyway - yes, this has been an issue with troops operating in forward areas under every flag in the world. The UN is no exception, nor should that come as any suprise to anyone.

And yes - if someone could come up with a way to solve it, then we would all be a whole lot happier.

OK Zooke, so besides expelling the soliders responsible and dealing with the internal issues, what exactly do you want the UN to do?

I mean, the US refuses to join such a thing as the world court, or to join any international initiative, unless their soldiers are exempted from facing charges no matter what they do. The idea being that the US feels equiped to handle such cases internally. Saddly, the US is not the only country that feels this way which is why the rules were put in place for Peacekeepers. These rules virtually ties the hands of the UN regarding how they can hadnle this issue.

Clearly these people violated laws and policies and the UN has tried to deal with them as they arise. Putting stricter policies in place serves little purpose as people inclined to break the laxer rules would have no compunction about the same for the tougher ones.

Do we change the rules to allow international legal culpability for peacekeepers? Then the UN would have even fewer countries signing up.

Do we abandon peacekeeping entirely? While it has had it's failures it has also had it's fair share of successes. Frankly, I think it still has a place and a function.

To my mind the biggest problem has been the unwillingness of western countries lately to get involved with manpower. Most of the countries putting forward most of the peacekeepers these days are third-world countries with their own fair share of human rights abuse issues. Expecting soldiers from countries with poor attitudes towards women and from a life under corrupt military juntas are, I think, more likely to take advantage of being in a position of authority and abuse it.

Yes, this has a problem with some peacekeepers. Clearly by the changes to regulations and the internal discussions that have been held the UN recognizes it as a problem and is trying to deal with it. And clearly from the articles noted, in conjunciton with some of the abuse stories out of Iraq with both US and British forces - this seems to be a wideflung issue with military sources from almost every country. And that no country or body has come up with an adequate solution yet.

Frankly, I think part of this is a side-effect of training people to be agressive and ruthless, and also from the fact that many soldiers often adopt a mindset where their opposition is somewhat subhuman. This, I think, is a psychological technique to assuage the conscience if you have to kill any of them. If they are less than you then you need not be as concerned about them. Unfortunately, aggressive and ruthless people are still needed in the world sometimes.

Anyway - yes, this has been an issue with troops operating in forward areas under every flag in the world. The UN is no exception, nor should that come as any suprise to anyone.

And yes - if someone could come up with a way to solve it, then we would all be a whole lot happier.

Zep, I don't know the solution. If I did I would be working in that field. I know that the US and other countries are unwilling to participate in a world court stems from demands that a number of our leaders be prosecuted for crimes based on differing opinions. Would you be willing to let your county's officials be prosecuted for laws or actions that differ from the standards of another country's? Also, some of the world court have expressed a desire to prosecute our troops for acts of war as directed by their superiors. It is apparent that some wish to condemn a war they don't agree with by going after the soldiers of that war.

I know that the peacekeeper pool available to the UN is of generally poor quality. Why is that? Why do western nations hesitate to participate? Is the cause rooted in the UN? What can the UN do to correct this? Is the source of most if not all the problems with the UN connected to the leadership?

...so besides expelling the soliders responsible and dealing with the internal issues, what exactly do you want the UN to do?


Excellent points. Again, we are faced with the problem of the UN not being able to do anything to resolve the problem. Diplomatic pressure is the only weapon. The UN could put diplomatic pressure on the government of individuals who commit those crimes to prosecute them. However, many countries just ignore the UN.

If the press would take a more pro-active role in reporting these abuses, maybe the resulting international outcry would be enough to pressure countries into prosecuting the offenders. Other than the Oil for Food, I have seen very, very little about these scandals in the press, either here in the US or internationally, which I think is Zooke’s point.

and that the US government knew for a loooooong time.
You automatically assume that because it was going on on US soil that the Gov knew about it and had evidence enough to stop it?

I know that the peacekeeper pool available to the UN is of generally poor quality. Why is that? Why do western nations hesitate to participate? Is the cause rooted in the UN? What can the UN do to correct this? Is the source of most if not all the problems with the UN connected to the leadership?

If I'm not mistaken, the majority of the peacekeeping forces 20 or 30 years ago was the western nations with very little help from the third world countries. Maybe the West just got fed up with the rest of the world not doing it's fair share?

Zep, I don't know the solution. If I did I would be working in that field. I know that the US and other countries are unwilling to participate in a world court stems from demands that a number of our leaders be prosecuted for crimes based on differing opinions. Would you be willing to let your county's officials be prosecuted for laws or actions that differ from the standards of another country's? Also, some of the world court have expressed a desire to prosecute our troops for acts of war as directed by their superiors. It is apparent that some wish to condemn a war they don't agree with by going after the soldiers of that war.

I know that the peacekeeper pool available to the UN is of generally poor quality. Why is that? Why do western nations hesitate to participate? Is the cause rooted in the UN? What can the UN do to correct this? Is the source of most if not all the problems with the UN connected to the leadership?

Why do they fail to participate? Because it is expensive, politically sensitive, and has little upside often for many leaders. That pine box that might come off the plane will always need justification, and few people care about a border war in sub-saharan Africa. Rich countries would rather throw money than bodies at many issues around the world. And poor countries get a break on their UN dues if they contribute.

Now, the mandate of the World Court is a fair bit narrower than you seem to be indicating. Soldiers fighting within the guidelines of the Geneva and Hague Conventions would never be prosecuted based on the popularity of the war itself. Of course, when you have an administration who thinks those rule to be quaint then you are more likely to run into problems.

And while I agree that the issue of past events and world leaders is problematic, some mechanisms can be put in place. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not going to put forth an opinion.

But I should point out that World Court only comes into play in the event that a country refuses to deal with a case in domestic court. So, for example, the soldiers at Abu Ghraib would not face charges in the World Court because they have faced them under Military Law.

But the primary issue with the US has always been a requirement for blanket immunity for it's forces. Indeed, it has introduced resolutions within the UN Security Council requesting such immunity for virtually every military action since the inception of the world court - including threatening to block an extension of the peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia via it's veto power unless it were granted. So far, it HAS been granted on numerous occasions to cover various specific military deployments.

Excellent points. Again, we are faced with the problem of the UN not being able to do anything to resolve the problem. Diplomatic pressure is the only weapon. The UN could put diplomatic pressure on the government of individuals who commit those crimes to prosecute them. However, many countries just ignore the UN.

If the press would take a more pro-active role in reporting these abuses, maybe the resulting international outcry would be enough to pressure countries into prosecuting the offenders. Other than the Oil for Food, I have seen very, very little about these scandals in the press, either here in the US or internationally, which I think is Zooke’s point.

Unfortunately, the immunity was written into the rules for peackeepers by the Western countries who initially were the primary participants. And I should note that the final disposition of most of these cases is not documented in most news reports. These countrrs are, after all, active within the UN - so they are far more likely to prosecute the offenders,

The dificulty (outside the soldiers involved), however, is jurisictional. If they are immune from prosecution locally under the UN mandate then all the UN can do is to expell them. When they arrive home their home country probably has no jurisdiction to try civilians working for a foreign entity on foreign soil.

While extradition may be possible in some cases, most of the countries involved in such UN efforts probably a) do not have extradition treaties with most other countries, and b) have a lot of more serious problems on their plate than worrying about a couple of rapists. They are just happy to see these individuals kicked out so they can deal with the more important issues at hand.

And - to come up with a parallel scenarion - there are pedophiles in our countries that seek out jobs that wil give them power over children. It would not suprise me if some people don't manage to get involved in this sort of work to feed similar sicknesses. In a perfect world we could hang them up by their balls as a warning to others, however the world ain't perfect.

But the primary issue with the US has always been a requirement for blanket immunity for it's forces. Indeed, it has introduced resolutions within the UN Security Council requesting such immunity for virtually every military action since the inception of the world court - including threatening to block an extension of the peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia via it's veto power unless it were granted. So far, it HAS been granted on numerous occasions to cover various specific military deployments.

Zep, I am retired from the US military. I do not believe I would serve if I knew I could be prosecuted for an alleged crime I supposedly committed in the line of duty by any judicial authority other than a US military or civilian court.

As a US citizen and military member, I knew what the rules were and I knew what to expect if I were accused of breaking those rules; a full investigation and, if warranted. a fair trial. I also knew that my rights were protected under the Constitution.

I do not think that any military member, of any country should be prosecuted for any crime committed in the line of duty by any court outside the jurisdiction of the laws and protection of his/her own country.

Please note that I said in the line of duty. Crimes committed while off duty and off the military post are a different matter.

And - to come up with a parallel scenarion - there are pedophiles in our countries that seek out jobs that wil give them power over children. It would not suprise me if some people don't manage to get involved in this sort of work to feed similar sicknesses. In a perfect world we could hang them up by their balls as a warning to others, however the world ain't perfect.

Unfortunately, they just discovered a loophole in the law in Oklahoma that allows convicted sex offenders to work in childcare facilities. If a person was convicted of a sex crime before a certain date, they are not required to register as a sex offender. If they apply for a position in a childcare facility, the background check comes up clean. Needless to say, the state legislature is working to close that loophole.

P.S. I enjoy your posts. They are very thought provoking. Thank you.

But the primary issue with the US has always been a requirement for blanket immunity for it's forces. Indeed, it has introduced resolutions within the UN Security Council requesting such immunity for virtually every military action since the inception of the world court - including threatening to block an extension of the peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia via it's veto power unless it were granted. So far, it HAS been granted on numerous occasions to cover various specific military deployments.

Why is the US requiring immunity a bad thing?

It seems that when nations exchange diplomats, that those diplomats are given some immunity. I would think that peace keeping forces are the tools which diplomats use, and should be afforded some degree of immunity as well.

Why is the US requiring immunity a bad thing?

It seems that when nations exchange diplomats, that those diplomats are given some immunity. I would think that peace keeping forces are the tools which diplomats use, and should be afforded some degree of immunity as well.

Yes but it give the impression of the troops being "above the law" and able to commit henious deeds without recrimination.

Diplomats don't go around heavily armed, therefore if they committed a deed with endangered the safety of citzens of the the country the were working in they could be easily subdued and returned to thier parent country. Large bodies of heavily armed troops can't be shifted as easily.

Damn that was great. Congradulations.

<blush> I owe it all to MS Word. I use it to compose my longer rants and correct my awful southern grammar and misspellings. Thank you Bill Gates...now about your marketing techniques....

Interesting thing about the oil sales scandals - now that the Bushies have used it as a weapon against the U.N., it come out that American individuals and companies benefitted as much as anyone, and that the US government knew for a loooooong time.

References please, a link or two would be appreciated.

Any of those companies into the oil for food program to the tune of a hundreds of millions of dollars?

Isn't it reasonable to assume that the UN is a worthy organization, but that its leadership, or lack of, is the root of its problems? I don't believe the UN should be eliminated. It could be a wonderful international force for good. But, as it is now being run, it is an embarassment.

Absolutely!

The goals of the UN are indeed admirable, unfortunately as you point out it is the leadership that is responsible for reaching, or at least striving to attain those goals. Part of that is ensuring that people representing the UN are not taking actions that are a direct contradiction to those goals.

Maybe they should start over. Petition to have EVERYONE currently in the UN taken out of their posistions and returned to their home countries.

Have every country appoint new representititves and have them elect amoung themselves new leadership.

Have UN membership and UN Aid contengent on conformance to the goals in the UN charter.

:) Yeah I know, but I always like to go for the Billion to One shot... :D

Zep, I am retired from the US military. I do not believe I would serve if I knew I could be prosecuted for an alleged crime I supposedly committed in the line of duty by any judicial authority other than a US military or civilian court.

As a US citizen and military member, I knew what the rules were and I knew what to expect if I were accused of breaking those rules; a full investigation and, if warranted. a fair trial. I also knew that my rights were protected under the Constitution.

I do not think that any military member, of any country should be prosecuted for any crime committed in the line of duty by any court outside the jurisdiction of the laws and protection of his/her own country.

Please note that I said in the line of duty. Crimes committed while off duty and off the military post are a different matter.

Good one. With this in mind, as the US and most all western nations have very strict rules governing their troops, would it be possible to create an agreed upon set of regulations governing UN peacekeepers. The countries involved would be held accountable for the actions of their people in violation of these regulations and required to prosecute them accordingly.

I second the motion

Me, too. How can anyone take an organization that called Rhodesia "a great threat to world peace," seriously?

Maybe they should start over. Petition to have EVERYONE currently in the UN taken out of their posistions and returned to their home countries.

Have every country appoint new representititves and have them elect amoung themselves new leadership.

I think in theory this is certainly something worth always having on the table and to explore, but history has shown us that nations or international organizations have only a limited number of people capable of running them. Here I'm looking at post-WWII Germany, where the Soviets and UK / France / US both used ex-Nazi party members to help get the GDR and Bundersrepubik (sp?) going.

While I'm not suggesting that the UN leadership are Nazis or evil, I am thinking that at the very least they do have institutional knowledge that a new international world body would need and that I would suspect that these individuals would find themselves in power again, if not in name, at least as consultants.

Good one. With this in mind, as the US and most all western nations have very strict rules governing their troops, would it be possible to create an agreed upon set of regulations governing UN peacekeepers. The countries involved would be held accountable for the actions of their people in violation of these regulations and required to prosecute them accordingly.

That already exists - they are called the Hague and Geneva Conventions, and all of our military forces are instructed on those conventions and informed that they are duty-bound to refuse any order that contravenes them.

The fact is, if you look at the cases before the World Court thus far (i.e Milosovic etc.) that the world court is not interested in minor issues. Private Smith pilfering from a local establishment is not going to result in a charge. However, if the US had said "Well fuck you", and let Abu Ghraib continue - then the soldiers would likely have been indicted under the world court.

And if it were another country doing somehting similar we would be decrying it for such abuses too now wouldn't er?

The World Court is designed to deal with serious issues only when the originating country abdicates it's responsibility. While we may all decry various events that have happened with members of our own and each others militaries, how many times have we not dealt with them ourselves? We have gone through the scandals, watche dthe inquiries into why it happened and witnessed the court cases, and we have moved on. In those cases, the World Court is a non-issue.

Now, to the former soldier who commented, as you note you are already subject to various laws depending on what you are doing and where you are at any given moment in or out of uniform. I somehow doubt that most people who are of a mindset to do so would refuse to serve their country simply because there was one more possible jurisdiction to worry about if they screwed up. Because you and I would already expect to get brought up in domestic court should we do so.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1413501,00.html

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/081zxelz.asp

I'm at a loss for words. With all the fuss about the Americans and the Brits and Abu Ghraib. Did this slip through the cracks?
No, see, here on NS, the UN is the most perfect entity ever. The UN can solve all problems, but only if they are against the US at the same time. It is typical leftist garbage; blame the US for all world problems, but ignore the same or worse from the UN or nation not called the U.S.A.

I knew better than to leave the discussion last night. Where do I start?
I thought it was evident that the point of this thread was to discuss UN problems, and, in view of the multiple threads on US prisoner abuse, why this was getting little or no attention. I was not claiming that the US should not be criticized for the abuse, but questioning why that issue receives constant attention while UN issues are given minimal attention.
And I thought it was evident that this question is illogical. Why has the abuses of prisoners in Abu Gharib the level of attention they have, and why has the UN scandel recieved the level of attention it has, are utterly unrelated questions unless you having provided the answers find some link in them. Just pretending that they are linked by asking about them in the same question is transparenting illogical to anyone examining the questions with an objective mind.

No, I prefaced that comment with “So, if we adopt this philosophy” in response to Rutziland’s “People/countries with such dark skeletons in their closets should not point their fingers at other people!!!” I believe it is clear that I was disputing Rutziland’s comment through example.

"So, if we adopt this philosophy, then no one anywhere can question the conduct of another as every country has skeletons hanging around. I am just amazed how the US, England, and Australia are ridiculed and denounced when they find misconduct among their troops and deal with it publicly. When anyone points out that the UN has been doing much worse for years, was aware of it, and basically did nothing, then that person has no right to bring up this minor problem. If you all could get over your "I hate the US" rant long enough to look around, you'll discover that we are far from the bad guys on the block. "
Sorry, I'm just not buying that the bolded comments are an example, rather than an assertion.

Again, I was referring to the almost rabid attack on every action (mistake or not) made by the US or an American to the point of almost totally ignoring problems within other entities.
If you could substantiate such a state of affairs, I suggest you would not need disingenious threads like this...

I tried to initiate a discussion on the mounting problems at the UN and the general shortage of coverage by the media. Instead this topic drew the comment
What thread was that in? Why should you have mentioned Abu Gharib as being material to the question if it was about the UN's problem when the UN were no involved in Abu Gharib? This thread is a cheap attempt to justify US actions and damm the UN based on the tactic of asking a question which assumes an unestablished link between the two.

“It is not official UN policy. In comparison, the Abu Ghraib incident seems to be the result of US policy towards torture. The comparison isn't exactly fair.” Obviously, some cannot put aside their obsession with the US to consider any other issues.
Obvious in what ways? And how is this relevent?

Then why were there UN weapons inspectors in Iraq? Why were there 17 UN sanctions?
The UN weapons inspectors were there to establish whether or not Saddam had WMD, at the time the US forced them to withdraw, the inspections had found no evidence of any current WMD program. The fact of sanctions is irrelevent, many countries have sanctions against them.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm

If by “self interest” you mean the invasion decision was based on a popular belief that Saddam had WMD and had made it clear he wished to do the US harm, then yes we did act in our own interests, and justly.
No that does not entail all of what I mean at all.

If you are under the impression we did it because of Iraq’s oil fields, then answer one question…why am I paying almost twice as much at the pumps as I did before the war? Iraq’s oil production is a drop in the bucket compared to the US demand.
If you are under the impression that one has to believe either the first or second of the suggested possibilities, your mind must be narrow indeed.

If the US was not concerned with the well being of the Iraqi people and the hope of peaceful relations between Iraq and the world at large, we would have pulled out as soon as Saddam was captured and let the Iraqis reorganize by themselves.
No, and if you truely believe this, I can see why you would get frustrated when trying to convince others of your simplistic and unrealistic world view.

The work and sacrifice of the coalition nations will ultimately be a benefit to all nations.
And you purchassed your crystal ball where exactly?

This goal would be more easily attained if certain nations would get involved instead of criticizing from the sidelines, but some of us are “doers” and others are “whiners”.
Right, and many crimes would be more easily achieved if no one resisted or complained about the transgression. What reason is there to believe the goal will ever be achieved as a result of the current scenario, what reason is there to believe that it isnt counterproductive to such a goal....sorry but 'my crystal ball, or My President, said so' is not a convincing argument.

Apply as warranted.
No way, it's your assertion, if you cant substantiate, I see no reason to apply it at all. 'Wink wink, you know who' is not supporting evidence of your assertion...

I heard a pundit make an interesting point the other day. Democratic nations do not go to war with each other.
Aha, I hear tired worn out cliches all the time too. They dont prove anything about anything, except about the inventiveness and automony of mind of the person forced to rely on them, in place of substantive sound arguments.


I have offered the logic and sources I use to formulate my opinions in counter to your unsubstantiated claims.
Stating so doesnt make it so. You have failed to produce one logically sound argument. As it happens I have not made a signal claim that I cannot substantiate either deductively or though solid inductive reasoning.

You may believe that questioning the multitude of problems within the UN are cheap shots, but a number of people do not.
I do not believe such a thing, nor have I stated that I believe such a thing, however if you find strawmen easier to address than the actual arguments addressed to you....carry on.

I believe that the UN is as accountable as any other entity for its actions and should be as open to discussion and criticism.
The first is a murkey area, just what are the UN's actions needs first to be established. As for the second, that much should be obvious and requires absolutely no reference to Abu Gharib in order to establish so.

No, like your post and similar others that attempted to hijack this thread and turn it into yet another anti-American rant.
I have not attempted to hijack the post, and saying that I have in order to turn it into anti-American rant only further reduces your credibility. As I pointed out, if you could let go of this paranoia and address the issue objectively and logically, you would find your discussion with others much more productive. Apparently your idea of cheap shots is anything which contradicts your simplistic illogical views. This is in fact not the normative meaning of the phrase.


Worse than rape and child molestation? Equal maybe but not worse.
What on earth do you imagaine you are commenting on? A person referred specifically to the Oil for Food scandel and the relevence of it's media coverage to that of the Abu Gharib issue, and I replied specifically. The comment didnt make any reference what so ever to anything except whether or not financial corruption (as per Oil for Food) is as bad as, worse than, or less bad than torturing people for fun. Just like every single thing other than financial corruption and torture for fun, rape and child molestation are not referred to or commented on in way, either directly or by implication by the particular comment you have cut entirely from context...

Only the Oil for Food has received a reasonable amount of media attention. The rape and pedophilia has not.
If this is so, then substantiate it. Stating it doesnt make it true. Even if it were true, it doesnt contradict anything I said, and it tells us nothing about why, nor does it show any reason why the issue isnt better considered as it's own issue.

*snip*

The French guy was arrested by French authorities under french law. The UN just sent him home.

I wonder what the law is regarding the UN and arrests. Does the UN have authority to arrest people or does it fall squarely on the country the offenders belong to, or the country the crime is committed?

Since many of the places the UN is involved in are lawless, the latter option seems unlikely.

Can the UN do anything right? Maybe it's time to disolve the UN.

Since Bush himself is stressing that the UN is still relevant (a nice change of tune) and he is cooperating with the UN concerning Iraq, don't count on this from happening.

Okay. Do you want to know why the US media doesn't cover UN abuses?

It's not a left-wing media conspiracy to demonize the US while making the lefty organizations look good (or just not look towards them at all).

Pre-Oil-for-Food, would you care about anything that was going down in the UN?

Nope. At least not much. Probably would raise no more than a 'Huh. That's interesting' response from you. I know that'd be my reaction. No emotional attachment.

A sex scandal by exploitive no-name UN employees would have got a passing mention on the 10 o'clock news but not much more.

It would not have gotten it's own theme music and opening sequence. It is not news that is 'sellable' to a viewing public on US cable news. That is until Oil-for-Food happened. Good timing, too! The US needed someone to make itself look less shitty. Who better to drag through the dirt than the organization they were butting heads with earlier! It is useful because it takes people's minds off the US's mistakes so not to shake their blind faith in their country.

Related to that: If foreigners were viciously outraged about something that their government was doing in another country and it affected the US not one bit, would you see it on the news? Theme music? Opening sequence?

No. In fact you would hardly notice and certainly not care even if it were mentioned. No big coverage = little relevance to the public.

This is probably why you don't hear about such things that often in the news. It generates very little interest and usually gets a passing mention with no real focus when it does happen to get mentioned.

Rational dialogue explaining some facts about media in a free market enviroment
An excellent example of why good sense is so very superior to common sense.

Good one. With this in mind, as the US and most all western nations have very strict rules governing their troops, would it be possible to create an agreed upon set of regulations governing UN peacekeepers. The countries involved would be held accountable for the actions of their people in violation of these regulations and required to prosecute them accordingly.

The US military has something like that in place for civil crimes in some host countries; it's called Status of Forces Agreement. If a crime is committed in a country with a Status of Forces Agreement, the host country allows the military member to be tried under US military law. Every civil offense committed by a US military member is also an offence against the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The system works as the offender is brought to justice under US law and the host nation doesn't have to deal with it.

Not all host nations have these agreements however and in those countries, the military member can be tried under host nation law for non-military crimes and offenses.

Maybe the UN could come up with something similar.

And I thought it was evident that this question is illogical. Why has the abuses of prisoners in Abu Gharib the level of attention they have, and why has the UN scandel recieved the level of attention it has, are utterly unrelated questions unless you having provided the answers find some link in them. Just pretending that they are linked by asking about them in the same question is transparenting illogical to anyone examining the questions with an objective mind.....

What did you say? :confused:

What did you say? :confused:
There are two questions
Why did Abu Gharib recieve the attention it did?
Why did the UN sex scandels receive the attention they did?
Unless the answer to those two questions shows some significant link between the two, there is no reason whatsoever to assume such a link exists, yet the question asked in this thread assumes such a link. That is as illogical as me asking "why do cows give milk if the Coca Cola company sells softdrinks?".

You are correct. The UN abuses are much, much worse.
Maybe on an individual level that is true, but not as an indication of the organizations themselves. I would say that a policy of human rights abuses is much worse than employees operating outside the policies of their organization.

An excellent example of why good sense is so very superior to common sense.

I please to aim :D

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1413501,00.html

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/081zxelz.asp

I'm at a loss for words. With all the fuss about the Americans and the Brits and Abu Ghraib. Did this slip through the cracks?

. . .Are you saying that because U.N. peacekeepers rape children, then it is okay for Americans to torture Iraqis? How does one even relate to the other, much less provide a justification for one another.

Last I heard, our standard of "justice" was "what is right", not "just above the U.N.'s standard of 'what is right.'"

I please to aim :D

Please aim. Especially if you are a male. :p

. . .Are you saying that because U.N. peacekeepers rape children, then it is okay for Americans to torture Iraqis? How does one even relate to the other, much less provide a justification for one another.

Last I heard, our standard of "justice" was "what is right", not "just above the U.N.'s standard of 'what is right.'"

No. If I read Zooke correctly, the point was; why do we hear so much about the alleged torture of Iraqis by Americans and so little about the UN peacekeeper rape of children in the press. Zooke was not condoning either action. He/she was questioning why the press spent so much coverage on Abu Grab and so little on the UN. :headbang:

No. If I read Zooke correctly, the point was; why do we hear so much about the alleged torture of Iraqis by Americans and so little about the UN peacekeeper rape of children in the press. Zooke was not condoning either action. He/she was questioning why the press spent so much coverage on Abu Grab and so little on the UN. :headbang:

Actually this is an interesting thread to lurk in ... I must say that I appreciate many of the posters here from all POVs.

I believe that is a fair question, but I'm still not convinced there is some sort of liberal bias against the US at work. It could be circumstantial ... meaning that perhaps there is just more information about Abu Grab that the press can use, and thus has focused on that.

I really don't know.

No. If I read Zooke correctly, the point was; why do we hear so much about the alleged torture of Iraqis by Americans and so little about the UN peacekeeper rape of children in the press. Zooke was not condoning either action. He/she was questioning why the press spent so much coverage on Abu Grab and so little on the UN. :headbang:
And this assumes a material link between the two that hasnt been substantiated and may prove to be non existent once the two utterly seperate questions Zooke linked together (for the purposes of assuming the unsubstantiated link) have been ascertained.

It is my honest opinion that Zooke has linked these two seperate questions together as though they are one, in order to pretend that a link has been established. If no such link exists the question doesnt even make sense, ergo the question relies on assuming a link that there is no reason to believe exists. If Zooke really thought such a link could be substantiated, why not do so, rather than posting the question in the hopes that no one would notice that no such link had been substantiated?

Umm...damn the UN for doing something to stop this. Those immoral bastards need to learn how to cover this stuff up and deny it exists. This is the moral decline, people.

Yes but it give the impression of the troops being "above the law" and able to commit henious deeds without recrimination.

Diplomats don't go around heavily armed, therefore if they committed a deed with endangered the safety of citzens of the the country the were working in they could be easily subdued and returned to thier parent country. Large bodies of heavily armed troops can't be shifted as easily.
The amount of armament is irrelevant to the conversation as the point made by Mikitivity in post 67 was that immunity from the laws, other than their own nations, be extended to all those on diplomatic missions. A pedophile or rapist with an attache case or a packet of food is as harmful as a soldier who does the same things. In all cases it is in the interest of the country who they represent to see to it that such actions are dealt with under their own laws. The failure of the sponsoring government to prosecute these individuals may well be seen as an implicit acquiescence and is subject to world opinion when such failure to enforce discipline and the law occurs.

And this assumes a material link between the two that hasnt been substantiated and may prove to be non existent once the two utterly seperate questions Zooke linked together (for the purposes of assuming the unsubstantiated link) have been ascertained.

It is my honest opinion that Zooke has linked these two seperate questions together as though they are one, in order to pretend that a link has been established. If no such link exists the question doesnt even make sense, ergo the question relies on assuming a link that there is no reason to believe exists. If Zooke really thought such a link could be substantiated, why not do so, rather than posting the question in the hopes that no one would notice that no such link had been substantiated?

I'm sorry I haven't had time to address this discussion the last couple of days, but I will try to take time to do so today or tomorrow. Let me sum up my intent when creating this thread. I obviously did not go into enough preliminary discussion to establish my aims. As I have stated before, this thread was indeed to question the preponderance of media coverage concerning Abu Ghraib, and now the emerging stories of prisoner abuse by British military, as compared to the basic lack of coverage of UN abuse that has been recorded for over 10 years. Also, I have noticed that the intensity and direction of attention given to a topic by the media is often mimicked here on NS. I in no way tried to compare the actual incidents of abuse or to try to justify one by pointing out another.

Peopleandstuff I would appreciate it if you would not try to interpret my comments in order to support your arguments. I know that you have issued some challenges to me and I will address them as time allows. "Real" life is pretty hectic this week, but I will address them.

In the meantime, the discussion of the imbalance in media coverage, the source of the problem(s) at the UN, the UN leadership and policies and possible improvements...these are all justifiable discussions. The comparison of the immorality of the abuses by militaries vs peacekeepers is not.

Thanks for listening, and stay tuned for further updates. :p

That already exists - they are called the Hague and Geneva Conventions, and all of our military forces are instructed on those conventions and informed that they are duty-bound to refuse any order that contravenes them.

The fact is, if you look at the cases before the World Court thus far (i.e Milosovic etc.) that the world court is not interested in minor issues. Private Smith pilfering from a local establishment is not going to result in a charge. However, if the US had said "Well fuck you", and let Abu Ghraib continue - then the soldiers would likely have been indicted under the world court.

And if it were another country doing somehting similar we would be decrying it for such abuses too now wouldn't er?

The World Court is designed to deal with serious issues only when the originating country abdicates it's responsibility. While we may all decry various events that have happened with members of our own and each others militaries, how many times have we not dealt with them ourselves? We have gone through the scandals, watche dthe inquiries into why it happened and witnessed the court cases, and we have moved on. In those cases, the World Court is a non-issue.

Now, to the former soldier who commented, as you note you are already subject to various laws depending on what you are doing and where you are at any given moment in or out of uniform. I somehow doubt that most people who are of a mindset to do so would refuse to serve their country simply because there was one more possible jurisdiction to worry about if they screwed up. Because you and I would already expect to get brought up in domestic court should we do so.

Your realization that there is a court of resort where a country fails to act against it's own miscreants obviates the needs for an ICC. The fact is most Americans reject the idea of the ICC as it fails to offer the same protections as our own bill of rights and it is easily politicized.

Your realization that there is a court of resort where a country fails to act against it's own miscreants obviates the needs for an ICC. The fact is most Americans reject the idea of the ICC as it fails to offer the same protections as our own bill of rights and it is easily politicized.

Here Here! Down with the ICC!

Your realization that there is a court of resort where a country fails to act against it's own miscreants obviates the needs for an ICC. The fact is most Americans reject the idea of the ICC as it fails to offer the same protections as our own bill of rights and it is easily politicized.

Arent the USA supreme court judges appointed by your politicians?

But basically what you say is true, except the last part. The ICC is meant to be the last resort tribunal, the last line of defence, in a form, actually the lowest common denominator. It should only act when everything else fails. If you Americans have so much faith in your system, that is good. It is also a garanty that no US soldier will ever be called to the ICC, since you will take care of your own rotting apples. So if you are so confident, so capable, why not sign it? It would give not just the court extra credibility, it would also give the USA credibility and legitimacy, which is the last thing that nowadays you have.

Arent the USA supreme court judges appointed by your politicians?

But basically what you say is true, except the last part. The ICC is meant to be the last resort tribunal, the last line of defence, in a form, actually the lowest common denominator. It should only act when everything else fails. If you Americans have so much faith in your system, that is good. It is also a garanty that no US soldier will ever be called to the ICC, since you will take care of your own rotting apples. So if you are so confident, so capable, why not sign it? It would give not just the court extra credibility, it would also give the USA credibility and legitimacy, which is the last thing that nowadays you have.

Because the ICC infringes on our Soveriegn Rights!

Sing A Happy Song! (and Men, Carry Condoms With You At All Times!)

Arent the USA supreme court judges appointed by your politicians?

But basically what you say is true, except the last part. The ICC is meant to be the last resort tribunal, the last line of defence, in a form, actually the lowest common denominator. It should only act when everything else fails. If you Americans have so much faith in your system, that is good. It is also a garanty that no US soldier will ever be called to the ICC, since you will take care of your own rotting apples. So if you are so confident, so capable, why not sign it? It would give not just the court extra credibility, it would also give the USA credibility and legitimacy, which is the last thing that nowadays you have.

Yes, our supreme court judges are nominated by the president, and then vetted and approved (or not approved) by Congress. Supreme court judges are not supposed to make or interpret law, however. Their duty is to rule on the application of the constitution.

There are loopholes available to other nations that would wish to use it for political purposes against the US. We handle our own problems and our credibility should not be judged on our willingness to leave our citizens open to international power plays.

Because the ICC infringes on our Soveriegn Rights!

In a manner of speaking that is true. However that can be said of every other international agreement the US has ever and will ever sign also. For example, every trade agreement includes mechanisms for dispute resolution with the power to adjudicate penalties for transgressors.

So, how is this "infringement" any different?

In a manner of speaking that is true. However that can be said of every other international agreement the US has ever and will ever sign also. For example, every trade agreement includes mechanisms for dispute resolution with the power to adjudicate penalties for transgressors.

So, how is this "infringement" any different?

With the split in opinion in recent years on how to handle the threat of terrorism and the nations that harbor terrorists, there has been heated demands for criminal prosecution of coalition (esp US) troops and government leaders. Though it would probably not ever happen, just the attempt to prosecute would lead to an even wider rift than we now see. And, what if it did occur?

With the split in opinion in recent years on how to handle the threat of terrorism and the nations that harbor terrorists, there has been heated demands for criminal prosecution of coalition (esp US) troops and government leaders. Though it would probably not ever happen, just the attempt to prosecute would lead to an even wider rift than we now see. And, what if it did occur?

Technically some of that is still possible should those people vacation in ICC countries. And what if it did occur based on some valid evidence that came to light for a specific case? Are you saying that Americans should get a pass for violating human rights that you would punish a foreigner for?

I recognize the possibility of the ICC becoming politicized. But then again, there have been ongoing discussion on how the US Supreme court gets politicized based on who is in power when an opening comes up too - and that generally can have a far more immediate effect on the lives of most Americans than the ICC ever will.

No, I don't think the US should be given a pass. But in terms of media coverage, the UN gets a pass nearly every time by comparison.

If the UN is claiming, like the US, to be an impartial arbiter of freedom, justice, and human rights, and is the provider of charity and protection, then it should be held to the same grueling standard of stories repeated every 10 minutes on the news networks - talked of in extremely disparaging tones by reporters and pundits - and constantly brought up again just when we thought the whole issue was resolved by prosecution and punishment of the guilty.

No, it's not even close. The UN is getting a free pass from most of the American media.

No, it's not even close. The UN is getting a free pass from most of the American media.

I somewhat disagree with that. Kofi Annan's son has been under some media attention for the past few months in the US.

The difference being that US newspapers tend to put US actions on the front page, and UN stories typically get burried in the middle of the front section. I don't read any national papers, just local California papers, but the UN is not ignored. It just happens to get the same treatment as say Germany or Italy in our papers.

An important thing to keep in mind is that California papers will run a front page story about snow in Boston long before covering a major political event in another country. Personally I think that is partly justified and partly not. The reason I'll defend the practice is Americans move around more these days and may be curious about family in other cities. But this sort of "America" only point of view means that international stories get buried. "Look, they are making a snow man in Boston! Wow!" :/

In a manner of speaking that is true. However that can be said of every other international agreement the US has ever and will ever sign also. For example, every trade agreement includes mechanisms for dispute resolution with the power to adjudicate penalties for transgressors.

So, how is this "infringement" any different?

Trade agreements are abit different than what we are talking about. In a trade agreement, it is totally spelled out on how to handle disputes and what to do with the transgressors. Therefore, all parties know what they are getting into.

As for the ICC, it would be used for publicity seekers and would be politicized to no end. Look on how slowly they are working with the Melocivich(Sp?) trial! Give me a break.

In our country, we have the ability to investigate, try, and if necessary, convict the guilty parties. We are doing that NOW in full view of the public with the Abu Garahb and Oil For Food. We are punishing those that are guilty on our own soil and that is how it should be.

Trade agreements are abit different than what we are talking about. In a trade agreement, it is totally spelled out on how to handle disputes and what to do with the transgressors. Therefore, all parties know what they are getting into.

As for the ICC, it would be used for publicity seekers and would be politicized to no end. Look on how slowly they are working with the Melocivich(Sp?) trial! Give me a break.

In our country, we have the ability to investigate, try, and if necessary, convict the guilty parties. We are doing that NOW in full view of the public with the Abu Garahb and Oil For Food. We are punishing those that are guilty on our own soil and that is how it should be.


Milosevic. And Are you saying that Milosevic's trial is being politicized? Proof please.

And again, if your country investigates and tries those that commit crimes, WHY DOES IT FEAR THE ICC? For example, no one could use the ICC to accuse the soldiers of abu graib due to the fact that as you said, they are being tried and punished.

Milosevic. And Are you saying that Milosevic's trial is being politicized? Proof please.

Didn't say it was. All I said was look at how it is being runned. He has been on trial now for a few years and still nothing is getting done there. Geez. How can we have an ICC if it takes 5 years roughly to try one individual. The Nuremburg trials didn't even last that long.

And again, if your country investigates and tries those that commit crimes, WHY DOES IT FEAR THE ICC? For example, no one could use the ICC to accuse the soldiers of abu graib due to the fact that as you said, they are being tried and punished.

Because the ICC is an international body. We DO NOT need some outsider to tell us how to conduct a trial. The ICC tried to tell us that we couldn't execute mexicans convicted of MURDERS in my country. No thanks. We do not need to be told what to do! We are fully capable of trying our own crooks and convicting them.

Trade agreements are abit different than what we are talking about. In a trade agreement, it is totally spelled out on how to handle disputes and what to do with the transgressors. Therefore, all parties know what they are getting into.


Are you suggfesting that the ICC makes up laws as it goes along? Sorry, but the statutes in play are just as well defined under international law as any tradfe agreement.

As for the ICC, it would be used for publicity seekers and would be politicized to no end. Look on how slowly they are working with the Melocivich(Sp?) trial! Give me a break.


This is predicated on the notion that the court would entertain spurious lawsuits. You have no foundation in fact for that. But if you want to talk effective legal systems, dare we say "OJ"?

In our country, we have the ability to investigate, try, and if necessary, convict the guilty parties. We are doing that NOW in full view of the public with the Abu Garahb and Oil For Food. We are punishing those that are guilty on our own soil and that is how it should be.

And all of those people, having been tried in their own country, would be exempt from the ICC - so your point is moot! Yes, it is how it should be, which is why the ICC only comes into play when a country refuses to try suspected criminals.

Because the ICC is an international body. We DO NOT need some outsider to tell us how to conduct a trial. The ICC tried to tell us that we couldn't execute mexicans convicted of MURDERS in my country. No thanks. We do not need to be told what to do! We are fully capable of trying our own crooks and convicting them.

No, the ICC pointed out that you had violated the very same Vienna Convention consular protections that you expect for your own citizens when arrested abroad - namely that your embassy be notified and that your own lawyers have the opportunity to participate. How many times have we read news stories about an American arrested overseas and the government complaining about a lack of consular access?

The US failed to notify the Mexican Government that these criminals had been arrested, hence violating their rights under a treaty that you are supposed to follow and that you expect other countries to follow when Americans are arested. And that is the reason why the US courts respected this decision by the ICC even though you are not a party to the ICC. BECAUSE YOUR COURTS FUCKED UP!

Don't complain about other countries holding you to a treaty that you signed. Teh complaint was not about the trial itself, the convition, or the penalty - it was about the failure to give the people access to judicial representation that they were entitled to under the law. You are, after all, supposed to be a country where due process is provided to all under the law.

Don't complain about it - Live up to it!

Actually Corneliu, as an addendum to that, I should remind you of one other salient fact:

It was the United States that was the first country to exercise the dispute settlement mechanism of the Vienna Conventions of Consular Relations by bringing an action against Iran at the ICJ following the 1979 seizure of the US Embassy in Tehran. The United States argued that the Vienna Convention conferred rights on individuals, the violation of which constituted a grave violation of consular practice and acceptable standards of human rights. In its final judgment, the International Court held that Iran had violated the Vienna Convention and other international obligations by failing to permit consular access to the hostages. The Court ordered the Iranian authorities to make reparations to the United States.

So, if it was so damn important for the US to set the benchmark and go to a world judicial body when it came to their citizens detained by a foreign country - don't come to me whining when citizens of other countries expect the same consideration from you. The hypocricy would be more than I could take without laughing.

Actually Corneliu, as an addendum to that, I should remind you of one other salient fact:

It was the United States that was the first country to exercise the dispute settlement mechanism of the Vienna Conventions of Consular Relations by bringing an action against Iran at the ICJ following the 1979 seizure of the US Embassy in Tehran. The United States argued that the Vienna Convention conferred rights on individuals, the violation of which constituted a grave violation of consular practice and acceptable standards of human rights. In its final judgment, the International Court held that Iran had violated the Vienna Convention and other international obligations by failing to permit consular access to the hostages. The Court ordered the Iranian authorities to make reparations to the United States.

So, if it was so damn important for the US to set the benchmark and go to a world judicial body when it came to their citizens detained by a foreign country - don't come to me whining when citizens of other countries expect the same consideration from you. The hypocricy would be more than I could take without laughing.

By and large, US attempts to get world bodies to bring other nations into compliance has been a collective and continuing joke.

The parading of US cases before these courts were merely political gestures, and the US in fact doesn't have any real ability to count on those courts to enforce their edicts with all nations - nor does the court have the ability to enforce its edicts with the US.

There is no world government yet. Nor is there likely to be such in our lifetime. Until then, these organizations are shadowy charades that have no teeth and no real existence.

Man oh man....I read about this a couple of months ago. It's beyond sickening. The Congo has just been the worlds punchbag for about the last 200 years. :(

Arent the USA supreme court judges appointed by your politicians?

But basically what you say is true, except the last part. The ICC is meant to be the last resort tribunal, the last line of defence, in a form, actually the lowest common denominator. It should only act when everything else fails. If you Americans have so much faith in your system, that is good. It is also a garanty that no US soldier will ever be called to the ICC, since you will take care of your own rotting apples. So if you are so confident, so capable, why not sign it? It would give not just the court extra credibility, it would also give the USA credibility and legitimacy, which is the last thing that nowadays you have.
First, as mentioned above, it would be redundant.

Second, it would be a political tribunal that we would have to agree to have greater authority than our own courts and rules of law. Why lend such a preposterous, unpalatable notion credibility or legitimacy? The march to a one world government, of which this is a step, is anethma to most Americans. We are loathe to sacrifice our soverignity to anybody or anything

Third, the United States has no need to curry favor with exactly those nations whose motives for having such a tribunal we distrust. The United States has no need to establish it's legitimacy. It is well established.

Our government's credibility wavers with the different politicians in office here and the objectives of the viewer abroad. Heck, it wavers here more than you might think.

In a manner of speaking that is true. However that can be said of every other international agreement the US has ever and will ever sign also. For example, every trade agreement includes mechanisms for dispute resolution with the power to adjudicate penalties for transgressors.

So, how is this "infringement" any different?
Trade agreements govern the actions of corporations. The ICC affects individuals. :rolleyes:

The UN can do no wrong, I see. :rolleyes:

Any chance your blind?

Trade agreements govern the actions of corporations. The ICC affects individuals. :rolleyes:


That is quite a hair to split on the issue of sovereignty infringement, and besides which there are still individuals and family run businesses who engage in international trade.

That is quite a hair to split on the issue of sovereignty infringement, and besides which there are still individuals and family run businesses who engage in international trade.

Key words, Family run businesses who engage in international trade. These people are bounded by trade agreements.

The US answers to no outside court and no outside court can tell the US how to run its court systems. The ICC tried to tell us how to handle illegal mexican immigrants that were convicted of murder and as far as I know, they are still on death row as they should be.

Are you suggfesting that the ICC makes up laws as it goes along? Sorry, but the statutes in play are just as well defined under international law as any tradfe agreement.

Dude! If the ICC cared at all about international law, then why has it taken many years to bring Slobodan to trial? By God, Nuremburg was quick and what the ICC is doing is a snails pace and Slobodan is using it as a bully pulpit. Sorry!

This is predicated on the notion that the court would entertain spurious lawsuits. You have no foundation in fact for that. But if you want to talk effective legal systems, dare we say "OJ"?

Dare we say "Tried by his peers and found innocent?" He was arrested and tried for murder and was acquitted. Sorry if you disagree with the outcome, but that is how a trial by jury works in the United States.

And all of those people, having been tried in their own country, would be exempt from the ICC - so your point is moot! Yes, it is how it should be, which is why the ICC only comes into play when a country refuses to try suspected criminals.

The USA tries its own people so why should we be apart of the ICC? We don't. We take care of our own dirty laundry so the ICC can screw themselves.

No, the ICC pointed out that you had violated the very same Vienna Convention consular protections that you expect for your own citizens when arrested abroad - namely that your embassy be notified and that your own lawyers have the opportunity to participate. How many times have we read news stories about an American arrested overseas and the government complaining about a lack of consular access?

If they are convicted of murder, I say put'em on death row. These people were found guilty of committing murders and were sentenced to death. Welcome to the Judicial System. Committ a crime and due the time. No violation what so ever. You come to this country, illegally (a crime within itself) or legally, and break our laws, you WILL be punished in accordance with said laws.

The US failed to notify the Mexican Government that these criminals had been arrested, hence violating their rights under a treaty that you are supposed to follow and that you expect other countries to follow when Americans are arested. And that is the reason why the US courts respected this decision by the ICC even though you are not a party to the ICC. BECAUSE YOUR COURTS FUCKED UP!

And just how did our courts screw up? The trials were JURY TRIALS!!! That means there are 12 people sitting in judgement. They found them guilty and sentenced them to death. We don't have to notify ANYONE that they have been arrested on our soil. The only way the government would be notified is if they asked to notify the councilor or the Embassy for all I care. If they didn't, well to bad.

Don't complain about other countries holding you to a treaty that you signed. Teh complaint was not about the trial itself, the convition, or the penalty - it was about the failure to give the people access to judicial representation that they were entitled to under the law. You are, after all, supposed to be a country where due process is provided to all under the law.

Are we still talking about the ICC? There is a difference between signing a treaty and RATIFYING IT!!! As far as I know, the ICC was NEVER RATIFIED. Therefore, under international law, we do not recognize said courts. Don't like it? To Bad.

Don't complain about it - Live up to it!

Likewise

The US answers to no outside court and no outside court can tell the US how to run its court systems. The ICC tried to tell us how to handle illegal mexican immigrants that were convicted of murder and as far as I know, they are still on death row as they should be.

No - YOU signed the VCCR and YOU made the case for a legal precedent to have it extend to individuals in '79. The ICC rendered a non-binding decision on the legality of your actions under that treaty, and it was the Attorney General of Oklahoma that pressured his courts to respect it.

The idea that you are blaming the ICC for rendering a decision identical to that which your country requested and used to extract compensation from Iran a couple of short decades ago is pretty laughable Corneliu.

And besides, you keep missing the point. The ICC did not tell you how to "run your courts". It passed no judgement whatsoever on the trials or the sentance. It just ruled that you had failed to live up to the treaty YOU signed and to which you hold other countries regarding consular notification and access when foreign nationals are signed.

You don't want to follow that treaty? Fine - Resign from it and stop expecting other countries to follow it.

But don't expect to have it both ways without objections.

Dude! If the ICC cared at all about international law, then why has it taken many years to bring Slobodan to trial? By God, Nuremburg was quick and what the ICC is doing is a snails pace and Slobodan is using it as a bully pulpit. Sorry!


so it ain't perfect. So what is?



The USA tries its own people so why should we be apart of the ICC? We don't. We take care of our own dirty laundry so the ICC can screw themselves.


If you are sure that you try all of your own criminals then you have no worries with the ICC. You become part of the ICC to give you a venue to bring charges against foreign nationals for crimes committed on their soil agains American interests if their countries are unwilling to act. Because without the ICC you have no venue for that. That is the whole point of it.


If they are convicted of murder, I say put'em on death row. These people were found guilty of committing murders and were sentenced to death. Welcome to the Judicial System. Committ a crime and due the time. No violation what so ever. You come to this country, illegally (a crime within itself) or legally, and break our laws, you WILL be punished in accordance with said laws.


Agreed. Ths ICC agreed with that too and would have had no complaint about the trials if you had given them their due process under the treaty you signed and regularly use with regard to other countries legal preceedings against Americans.


And just how did our courts screw up? The trials were JURY TRIALS!!! That means there are 12 people sitting in judgement. They found them guilty and sentenced them to death. We don't have to notify ANYONE that they have been arrested on our soil. The only way the government would be notified is if they asked to notify the councilor or the Embassy for all I care. If they didn't, well to bad.


Yes, you did have to notify their consulates. Read the law. It is not up to the arrested person to be aware of all their rights, it is up to your legal representatives to notfiy them of those rights. Miranda is an example of the application of that concept.


Are we still talking about the ICC? There is a difference between signing a treaty and RATIFYING IT!!! As far as I know, the ICC was NEVER RATIFIED. Therefore, under international law, we do not recognize said courts. Don't like it? To Bad.


But you DID ratify the Vienna Conventions on Consular Relations. As such, it is binding. And that is why the Attorney General of Oklahoma recognized the problem and pressured his courts to uphold the decision of the ICC pending a hearing with the supreme court.

And in case you didn;t notice, all this ruling from the ICC would have required is a declared misstrial with access to the perpetrators consular lawyers for the retrial. If guilty then they would be convicted again, and put right back on death row.

It was a correctable legal error that will, in the end, change nothing except the expense of a retrial. and that expense is often borne by the taxpayers in the event of mistrials due to judicial error. And retrials happen pretty frequently.


You've just got your panties in a bunch because it is a foreign court pointing out the error instead of your own appeals court. But it doesn;t mean that the error wasn't made.

If you want to hear of a sick sex scandal read about the sex scandal that happend on Pitcairns Island. The poppulation is around 50 I think.

That is quite a hair to split on the issue of sovereignty infringement, and besides which there are still individuals and family run businesses who engage in international trade.
Well, at least you'll admit that it would be soverignity infringement.

A business by any other name is still a business.

No - YOU signed the VCCR and YOU made the case for a legal precedent to have it extend to individuals in '79. The ICC rendered a non-binding decision on the legality of your actions under that treaty, and it was the Attorney General of Oklahoma that pressured his courts to respect it.

The idea that you are blaming the ICC for rendering a decision identical to that which your country requested and used to extract compensation from Iran a couple of short decades ago is pretty laughable Corneliu.

And besides, you keep missing the point. The ICC did not tell you how to "run your courts". It passed no judgement whatsoever on the trials or the sentance. It just ruled that you had failed to live up to the treaty YOU signed and to which you hold other countries regarding consular notification and access when foreign nationals are signed.

You don't want to follow that treaty? Fine - Resign from it and stop expecting other countries to follow it.

But don't expect to have it both ways without objections.

I happen to agree with you on one point. If the US doesn't live up to it's end of the treaty (ratified in 1969) then it is up to Mexico, or other likeminded nations, who lawfully arrest an American citizen within it's borders to follow the US example of non-notification of the detainee of their rights under the convention.

Since we are talking about Texas and not New York I suppose there is a predisposition to overzealously assert their states rights perrogatives. A court test would make an interesting case. It could be just as easily argued that some provincal authority in Inner Slobovinia didn't feel bound by their national governments international treaties and has no obligation to comply with it's terms.

I still disagree on the ICC, but I'll give you the obvious point for hypocricy of that case.

There are two questions
Why did Abu Gharib recieve the attention it did?
Why did the UN sex scandels receive the attention they did?
Unless the answer to those two questions shows some significant link between the two, there is no reason whatsoever to assume such a link exists, yet the question asked in this thread assumes such a link. That is as illogical as me asking "why do cows give milk if the Coca Cola company sells softdrinks?".

Ok! That's what I thought you said. :confused: :confused: :headbang:

I believe that is a fair question, but I'm still not convinced there is some sort of liberal bias against the US at work. It could be circumstantial ... meaning that perhaps there is just more information about Abu Grab that the press can use, and thus has focused on that.

Are you suggesting the UN tried to cover up the sex scandals? I hadn't thought about that.

Are you suggesting the UN tried to cover up the sex scandals? I hadn't thought about that.

Of course they have tried to cover it up. They are doing the samething with Oil For Food Scandal. They're covering that up too.

I happen to agree with you on one point. If the US doesn't live up to it's end of the treaty (ratified in 1969) then it is up to Mexico, or other likeminded nations, who lawfully arrest an American citizen within it's borders to follow the US example of non-notification of the detainee of their rights under the convention.

Since we are talking about Texas and not New York I suppose there is a predisposition to overzealously assert their states rights perrogatives. A court test would make an interesting case. It could be just as easily argued that some provincal authority in Inner Slobovinia didn't feel bound by their national governments international treaties and has no obligation to comply with it's terms.

I still disagree on the ICC, but I'll give you the obvious point for hypocricy of that case.

Yes there are some valid reasons not to get behind the ICC as it is currently designed. Cornelius example just wasn't one of them and besides that he was completely misrepresenting it.

So sometimes I'm anal about the facts.

So sue me :D

And this assumes a material link between the two that hasnt been substantiated and may prove to be non existent once the two utterly seperate questions Zooke linked together (for the purposes of assuming the unsubstantiated link) have been ascertained.

Are you an engineer or a philosopher?

Yes there are some valid reasons not to get behind the ICC as it is currently designed. Cornelius example just wasn't one of them and besides that he was completely misrepresenting it.

So sometimes I'm anal about the facts.

So sue me :D

I don't think someone outside of Canada can sue you. LOL!!

Misrepresented them have I? They have tried to interfer in US Justice System. I find that offensive since we don't even recognize the ICC! Why should the US listen to an organization that it doesn't recognize?

Arent the USA supreme court judges appointed by your politicians?

Yes and no. The judges are appointed by the President with the "advice and consent of the Senate." The President doesn't always get his first nominee appointed as in the case of Judge Bork. The appointment of judges is spelled out in the Constitution and the process prevents a President from loading the courts with whomever he pleases especially when the opposition party is in control of the Senate.

Of course they have tried to cover it up. They are doing the samething with Oil For Food Scandal. They're covering that up too.


Sure they're covering it up. (http://iafrica.com/news/worldnews/392951.htm)

That's why it was a UN agency (UNHCR) that first reported the cases it had uncovered in Bunia.

That's why the UN immediately dispatched a team to investigate the veracity of those claims.

And that's why Kofi Annan held a press conference to detail that the investigation HAD uncovered cases, and expressing the intent to ensure prosecution of the offenders.


They did all that to try to keep the story from the public

:rolleyes:


You know something - just because your media chooses not to emphasize something doesn't mean that nobody is putting the information out there for those who are interested. (http://www0.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=12990&Cr=democratic&Cr1=congo)

Right there on the UN website's news section from January 7th.

A report from the Office of Internal Oversight Services says, "The OIOS investigation into allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse of local Congolese women and girls found that the problem was serious and ongoing. Equally disturbing was the lack of a protection and deterrence programme at this time."

Although the troops knew that the investigation was being conducted in eastern Bunia town from June to September last year, they continued their activities, as evidenced by "the presence of freshly used condoms near military camps and guard posts and by the additional allegations of recent cases of solicitations brought to the attention of the OIOS team during the last days of the investigation."

Despite lack of cooperation from two of the three military contingents, the OIOS investigated 72 allegations, resulting in 20 case reports. Of these cases, perpetrators were positively identified in six, not identified in 11 and the accusations were not fully corroborated in two.


Wow - that is one hell of a coverup.....

I don't think someone outside of Canada can sue you. LOL!!

Misrepresented them have I? They have tried to interfer in US Justice System. I find that offensive since we don't even recognize the ICC! Why should the US listen to an organization that it doesn't recognize?

Why should you listen to an opinion? I dunno. How about BECAUSE THEY WERE RIGHT!!!!


You failed to live up to the specifics of a treaty you signed and ratified. A treaty you have invoked when the shoe was on the opposite foot and it was an American incarcerated overseas.

This reulted in a failure of due process for these foreign nationals, and given that states are required to live up to federal treaty obligations under your own Constitution this translated to a failure of due process at the state level.

You were not REQUIRED to adhere to their decision. They knew that, but that did not stop them from publishing their opinion and they came to the correct decision.

And one of your own state Attorney General's agreed with them which is the ONLY reason that their decision had any effect whatsoever.

That is not interference in any way whatsoever as their decision was moot unless you chose to take note of it - which you did.

So if you are so confident, so capable, why not sign it?

Because no member of the United States military should be subject to any foreign jurisdiction for carrying out the orders of his/her superiors. As long as the US government takes action against those who commit crimes, there is no need to have any other jurisdiction involved. Our Constitution guarantees us certain rights such as final appeal to the Supreme Court, not the ICC. We are citizens of the United States not some nebulous entity that appoints the ICC.

By the way, no military member should be subject to the ICC. Their own country should try them and if their country refuses to try them, it is up to the rest of the world to bring pressure on the government, not to try the individual.

I don't think someone outside of Canada can sue you. LOL!!

Misrepresented them have I? They have tried to interfer in US Justice System. I find that offensive since we don't even recognize the ICC! Why should the US listen to an organization that it doesn't recognize?
It wasn't the ICC that rendered the opinion. It was the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that granted Mexico's petition to halt the execution of 3 of it's citizens by US jurisdictions. The basis for the request was that the US based authorities failed to honor the terms of a ratified treaty which calls for the advisement of the right of a defendant to consular consultation and assistance.

Were the shoe on the other foot you can only imagine the uproar here.

Because no member of the United States military should be subject to any foreign jurisdiction for carrying out the orders of his/her superiors. As long as the US government takes action against those who commit crimes, there is no need to have any other jurisdiction involved. Our Constitution guarantees us certain rights such as final appeal to the Supreme Court, not the ICC. We are citizens of the United States not some nebulous entity that appoints the ICC.

By the way, no military member should be subject to the ICC. Their own country should try them and if their country refuses to try them, it is up to the rest of the world to bring pressure on the government, not to try the individual.

So, are you then saying that such trials as Nurmberg should not have happened? That it was up to the Germans to take care of them? And using this theory should not then all suspected terrorists captured in Iraq and Afghanistand be returned to their countries of origin to be tried there? After all, it is only up to you to pressure those countriies to deal with these individuals rather than deal with them yourself.

Or where do you draw that line?

But if you want to talk effective legal systems, dare we say "OJ"?

No one ever said our legal system is effective, but it is just. Whether we agree with the verdict in the OJ case or not, it was a fair trial. A jury of ordinary citizens found him not guilty. Obviously, that had some reasonable doubt about his guilt.

Are you an engineer or a philosopher?
No, is there some reason you believe one would need to be, before one could recognise a badly formulated question and communicate as much?

So sue me :D

Can we do that in the ICC? :fluffle:

Can we do that in the ICC? :fluffle:

No - it's a criminal court, not a civil one :D

So, are you then saying that such trials as Nurmberg should not have happened? That it was up to the Germans to take care of them? And using this theory should not then all suspected terrorists captured in Iraq and Afghanistand be returned to their countries of origin to be tried there? After all, it is only up to you to pressure those countriies to deal with these individuals rather than deal with them yourself.

Or where do you draw that line?

After WW II, there was no German government so the allies set up the Nuremberg trials.
The terrorists captured in Afghanistan are not part of a military. The terrorists captured in Iraq will eventually be tried by Iraq.

It wasn't the ICC that rendered the opinion. It was the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that granted Mexico's petition to halt the execution of 3 of it's citizens by US jurisdictions. The basis for the request was that the US based authorities failed to honor the terms of a ratified treaty which calls for the advisement of the right of a defendant to consular consultation and assistance.

Were the shoe on the other foot you can only imagine the uproar here.

Same thing! We don't even recognize the ICJ either!

Same thing! We don't even recognize the ICJ either!

Really? So when you used the IJC to sue in Iran in the 70's you were spending taxpayers money to argue a case before a judicial entity that you don't even recognize?

Interesting.....

Really? So when you used the IJC to sue in Iran in the 70's you were spending taxpayers money to argue a case before a judicial entity that you don't even recognize?

Interesting.....

I'll go back and double check but I do know that we don't recognize the ICC and therefore will ignore the rulings from it.

So you use these threads here on NS to tell you what is really happening in the world? You are a prime example of the superiority of the Canadian educational system.

I saw a while back on NS that Bush was actually responsible for the tsunami. I guess it's true since it was posted here on NS!
Ummm if you care to check back, you will find that those earlier discussions on "inappropiate" actions on a higher level were all backed by news articles from the "real" world and not based on fantasy as many posters here deal in.

Since you seem unwilling or unable to refute my post with any "facts" of your own, you feel it necessary to resort to a personal attack?

Do some research and you might be surprised what you can learn?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/UN/peace.html

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/archive/index.php/t-4101.html

http://boards.marihemp.com/boards/msg1x76999.shtml

http://www.montrealmirror.com/2004/111104/news1.html
Of the 4 links that you posted, 2 of them are from blogs, 1 doesn't mention anything about Canadian abuse, and the one that does, comes from the "New American" and notes only 1 incident.

Hardly a severe indictment against Canadians?

I'll go back and double check but I do know that we don't recognize the ICC and therefore will ignore the rulings from it.

For you enlightenment, the ICJ (or World Court) is the UN legal body under which treaty violations are adjudicated. It IS the legal body that the US recognizes and uses for all cases regarding UN treaties duly ratified by your government.

Next I would suggest that you go and reread your own Constitution, specifically article VI which states:

Article. VI.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.



Then finally, go and read the Vienna Convention.

The only reason that this has dragged on is that some of the states in question have argued that they are NOT bound by the treaty as they feel that they have an independant judiciary. However the IJC rulings handed down mean that should states continue to prosecute offenders from those countries that have had judgements levied against the US, then those countries will be able to seek redress via such things as trade sanctions.


Like I said. You signed the treaty. You expect other countries to follow it. If you aren't willing to follow it then withdraw from it. Otherwise tell your judiciary to inform foreign nationals of their right to consular help at the time that charges are brought. That's all it would take to make this a non-issue.

If they are guilty, then the conviction will still happen regardless of the legal help this person will recieve from their embassy. The treaty does not - after all - afford any sort of immunity. It just affords them a phone call to their embassy and help from their embassy's lawyers.

In other words, it affords them exactly what YOU would want should you be arrested overseas.

For you enlightenment, the ICJ (or World Court) is the UN legal body under which treaty violations are adjudicated. It IS the legal body that the US recognizes and uses for all cases regarding UN treaties duly ratified by your government.

Next I would suggest that you go and reread your own Constitution, specifically article VI which states:



Then finally, go and read the Vienna Convention.

The only reason that this has dragged on is that some of the states in question have argued that they are NOT bound by the treaty as they feel that they have an independant judiciary. However the IJC rulings handed down mean that should states continue to prosecute offenders from those countries that have had judgements levied against the US, then those countries will be able to seek redress via such things as trade sanctions.


Like I said. You signed the treaty. You expect other countries to follow it. If you aren't willing to follow it then withdraw from it. Otherwise tell your judiciary to inform foreign nationals of their right to consular help at the time that charges are brought. That's all it would take to make this a non-issue.

If they are guilty, then the conviction will still happen regardless of the legal help this person will recieve from their embassy. The treaty does not - after all - afford any sort of immunity. It just affords them a phone call to their embassy and help from their embassy's lawyers.

In other words, it affords them exactly what YOU would want should you be arrested overseas.

Well..looking at the ICJ website, both states have to be in agreement about using the ICJ before going to it. Its one of those things that a country cant really be forced into doing on its own. This is going on the basis of the courts jurisdiction. Just because the ICJ is part of the UN, does not mean every member nation is subject to its rulings.

Well..looking at the ICJ website, both states have to be in agreement about using the ICJ before going to it. Its one of those things that a country cant really be forced into doing on its own. This is going on the basis of the courts jurisdiction. Just because the ICJ is part of the UN, does not mean every member nation is subject to its rulings.

And the US IS in agreement. They have used the ICJ to render a judgement against Iran on this very same treaty in '79. They argued the cases against Mexico and Germany at the ICJ on this issue. They lost.

You can read all of the court case here (http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusframe.htm), so clearly the US was involved in the trial.

All that is left then is the internal issue within the US where certain states are refusing to acknowledge this judgement and are fighting internally for a right to be exempted from the treaty. The Feds don't want to push the states to hard because of just the mindset of people like Corneliu who seem to feel that countries making the US live up to a treaty is "interference" - which I guess means that they don't think the US should bother with treaties. It's a sensitive political issue.

But it will be the Feds who take the heat if trade sanctions are put in place over continued prosecution of foriegn nationals by these states that refuse to live up to their Article VI obligations - so they are stuck between a rock and a hard place.


But hey, if you don't want guarantees of consular access for your citizens overseas, then by all means stop giving it to foreigners in the US.

It's your choice.

So, are you then saying that such trials as Nurmberg should not have happened? That it was up to the Germans to take care of them? And using this theory should not then all suspected terrorists captured in Iraq and Afghanistand be returned to their countries of origin to be tried there? After all, it is only up to you to pressure those countriies to deal with these individuals rather than deal with them yourself.

Or where do you draw that line?


Exception to the fact, not the rule. Germany nor Japan were in any real condition to put on trial jaywalkers much less the folks who RAN the country for nearly a decade.Most of the Nazi's at Nuremburg werent typical soldiers either. They were political leaders, top "medical" researchers, industrialists etc. etc. But you did ignore the fact he said it was up to the world to put pressure on the government to try them fairly and justly. Sometimes its possible, sometimes its not.

And the US IS in agreement. They have used the ICJ to render a judgement against Iran on this very same treaty in '79. They argued the cases against Mexico and Germany at the ICJ on this issue. They lost.

You can read all of the court case here (http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusframe.htm), so clearly the US was involved in the trial.

All that is left then is the internal issue within the US where certain states are refusing to acknowledge this judgement and are fighting internally for a right to be exempted from the treaty. The Feds don't want to push the states to hard because of just the mindset of people like Corneliu who seem to feel that countries making the US live up to a treaty is "interference" - which I guess means that they don't think the US should bother with treaties. It's a sensitive political issue.

But it will be the Feds who take the heat if trade sanctions are put in place over continued prosecution of foriegn nationals by these states that refuse to live up to their Article VI obligations - so they are stuck between a rock and a hard place.


But hey, if you don't want guarantees of consular access for your citizens overseas, then by all means stop giving it to foreigners in the US.

It's your choice.

Well, its a case by case basis...otherwise they wouldnt need to go back to the ICJ repeatedly for different cases. Or was I mistaken in reading that they went back three seperate times for three seperate occassions?

BTW, ratification of the World Court is contained in your ratification of the UN Charter. The World Court is an integral part of the UN process to adjudicate legal disagreements between member states.

Now, the applicability of when the court comes into play is defined within the Court's charter, which notes in article 36: (http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments/ibasictext/ibasicstatute.htm#CHAPTER_I)

1. The jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force.

then you look at the actual text of the Vinna Conventions on Consular relations (http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/consularrelations.html) and note that the ICJ was agreed to as the adjudicating body for disputes for this treaty which has been ratified by the US government:

Expressing their wish to resort in all matters concerning them in respect of any dispute arising out of the interpretation or application of the
Convention to the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, unless some other form of settlement has been agreed upon by the parties within a reasonable period,




So yes, the US recognizes the World Court, and yes it was the proper agreed upon place for this issue on the treaty violation to be adjudicated, and yes the US IS bound by this decision under the UN and under it's own Constitution.


And that is just about enough legwork for me to do to source support for my position on this.

Well, its a case by case basis...otherwise they wouldnt need to go back to the ICJ repeatedly for different cases. Or was I mistaken in reading that they went back three seperate times for three seperate occassions?

The US sued Iran on a treaty violation, and three countries ahve sued the US over violations. The nature of such a treaty is that individual nations must bring their own cases in order to be able to seek redress.

But I'm betting that the ICJ is getting tired of hearing these cases so why not just put the policy in place to inform foreign nationsl of their right to contact their consulates?

Why is that so hard to do?

You can still convict them, but you don't keep having to waste tax dollars defending cases in the IJC that you can't win?

BTW, ratification of the World Court is contained in your ratification of the UN Charter. The World Court is an integral part of the UN process to adjudicate legal disagreements between member states.


I would bet that no ratification of a treaty trumps the sovereignty of the US and its Constitution. While we may ratify treaties, and we may hold to them, or may inconsistently apply them, it's far easier from a legal and realistic standpoint to violate a treaty on occasion.

It is difficult to sell your constituents on the idea that the US is subordinate in all things to the UN. Welcome to world government.

It doesn't play well in the US. Brings up more conspiracy theorists than John Ashcroft ever did.

Wonder why gun ownership increased by 49 percent in the eight years of the Clinton Administration? Want to bet that a portion of that was outright paranoia?

Well..looking at the ICJ website, both states have to be in agreement about using the ICJ before going to it. Its one of those things that a country cant really be forced into doing on its own. This is going on the basis of the courts jurisdiction. Just because the ICJ is part of the UN, does not mean every member nation is subject to its rulings.

Correctemundo my friend. And hence why it can be ignored and it has been ignored on many occassions.

Correctemundo my friend. And hence why it can be ignored and it has been ignored on many occassions.

Well to be fair to the otherside of the arguement nations ignore the ICJ at their own risk. Normally nations that do can afford to do so because they have the power, and really just dont care about the ICJ.

Well to be fair to the otherside of the arguement nations ignore the ICJ at their own risk. Normally nations that do can afford to do so because they have the power, and really just dont care about the ICJ.

So very true indeed! I don't even trust the ICJ and I don't care about them either.

For you enlightenment, the ICJ (or World Court) is the UN legal body under which treaty violations are adjudicated. It IS the legal body that the US recognizes and uses for all cases regarding UN treaties duly ratified by your government.

Next I would suggest that you go and reread your own Constitution, specifically article VI which states:



Then finally, go and read the Vienna Convention.

The only reason that this has dragged on is that some of the states in question have argued that they are NOT bound by the treaty as they feel that they have an independant judiciary. However the IJC rulings handed down mean that should states continue to prosecute offenders from those countries that have had judgements levied against the US, then those countries will be able to seek redress via such things as trade sanctions.


Like I said. You signed the treaty. You expect other countries to follow it. If you aren't willing to follow it then withdraw from it. Otherwise tell your judiciary to inform foreign nationals of their right to consular help at the time that charges are brought. That's all it would take to make this a non-issue.

If they are guilty, then the conviction will still happen regardless of the legal help this person will recieve from their embassy. The treaty does not - after all - afford any sort of immunity. It just affords them a phone call to their embassy and help from their embassy's lawyers.

In other words, it affords them exactly what YOU would want should you be arrested overseas.


Well stated, accurate and concise.

All this takes is the addition of a sentence or two to the existing Miranda warning. Something along the lines of,

"If you are a foreign national you have the right to contact your nation's consulate. You have the right to unfettered communication with your counsul and to such aid in your defense as offered by your nation's consul. Do you understand this right?"

Well stated, accurate and concise.

All this takes is the addition of a sentence or two to the existing Miranda warning. Something along the lines of,

"If you are a foreign national you have the right to contact your nation's consulate. You have the right to unfettered communication with your counsul and to such aid in your defense as offered by your nation's consul. Do you understand this right?"

Uhhh! The maranda warning is that You have the right to remain silent. If you give up this right anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have a right to an attorney and to have him present during questioning. If you chose to have an attorney and cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you by the courts. Do you understand these right?

I would bet that no ratification of a treaty trumps the sovereignty of the US and its Constitution. While we may ratify treaties, and we may hold to them, or may inconsistently apply them, it's far easier from a legal and realistic standpoint to violate a treaty on occasion.

It is difficult to sell your constituents on the idea that the US is subordinate in all things to the UN. Welcome to world government.

It doesn't play well in the US. Brings up more conspiracy theorists than John Ashcroft ever did.

Wonder why gun ownership increased by 49 percent in the eight years of the Clinton Administration? Want to bet that a portion of that was outright paranoia?
All signatory nations, including the US, did agree to the use of the ICJ to settle disputes within the treaty' itself. The US Constitution clearly states that treaties that are ratified by the states are binding on all states. The treaty then becomes the legal standard for the government's behaviour. There is no constitutional conflict as the constitution itself specifically addresses the issue.

Is Monrovian thinking a coined phrase or may I claim it?

Uhhh! The maranda warning is that You have the right to remain silent. If you give up this right anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have a right to an attorney and to have him present during questioning. If you chose to have an attorney and cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you by the courts. Do you understand these right?
Which part of the phrase "the addition of a sentence or two to the existing Miranda warning" didn't you get?
:rolleyes:

Which part of the phrase "the addition of a sentence or two to the existing Miranda warning" didn't you get?
:rolleyes:

Can you show me where you got it so I can see it for myself because that is the first time I have ever heard those lines.

Can you show me where you got it so I can see it for myself because that is the first time I have ever heard those lines.
Take a deep breath, walk away from the monitor for 5 minutes. Have a cool drink & then take another look at what I said in post #157.

The UN allows the systematic abuse of women and children occur by their own people and it is effectively swept under the carpet by the media.

Like I said, it has nothing to do w/ the US or Bush so the media doesn't care.


No, if it has nothing to do with the US, the US doesn't care. Frenchmen committing crimes in Africa doesn't spark Americans' isolationist interests. Why do you think that there was no mention of the Rwandan Genocide for so many years? The only reason there's any mention of the problems in the Darfur region is because it's sort of a Middle East issue. The only reason Liberia was in the news was because American companies own gold mines there. And we actually founded that country.

The media isn't engaging in any sort of liberal conspiracy to protect the big bad UN, Americans just don't care.

I would bet that no ratification of a treaty trumps the sovereignty of the US and its Constitution. While we may ratify treaties, and we may hold to them, or may inconsistently apply them, it's far easier from a legal and realistic standpoint to violate a treaty on occasion.

It is difficult to sell your constituents on the idea that the US is subordinate in all things to the UN. Welcome to world government.

It doesn't play well in the US. Brings up more conspiracy theorists than John Ashcroft ever did.

Wonder why gun ownership increased by 49 percent in the eight years of the Clinton Administration? Want to bet that a portion of that was outright paranoia?

For a treaty to be binding does not mean that US sovreignty is subordinated in any way. Our own Congress ratifies treaties, this means that the articles of the treaty become US law. True, the Federal Government is fully capable of violating its own laws if the political will is there, as it seems to be more and more often these days, but if US law is supposed to by binding at even the highest levels then this includes treaties to which we are signatories.

Of course, if the articles of any treaty conflict with the US constitution then Congress had no power to ratify the treaty and we must withdraw from it unless an Amendment is added to our constitution that makes that treaty binding.

It's like that contract that Pat Robertson drew up to mine gold in Liberia. Their constitution said that only their congress could make such a contract, but the contract said that it would go into effect as soon as their president signed it. It was put into practice, but it wasn't really law.

Frenchmen committing crimes in Africa doesn't spark Americans' isolationist interests.

:confused:I hardly think we (the US) are isolationists. I do believe most of the world would not think we are isolationists. In fact, many people call us imperialists but I don't think we are either.

The US ratified the treaty and should keep the treaty, but I will bet that most state court judges and local police forces have never heard of it
also you should look into the reasons the treaty even exists, the US justice system guarantee's legal representation to anyone put on trial here and even provides it for free to those who can not afford it (not always the best representation, but alot better than I would get in mexico from their government)
what other countries provide legal representation to foriegners arrested in their countries?

the treaty is supposed to give foriegners arrested in other countries a chance at some sort of representation in any legal charges against them in those countries, something the US already provides under our justice system.

even though the US did not tell the mexican consulate that 3 of their citizens had been arrested and were going to be tried, I can be sure that the legal representation provided by the justice system was better than any that would have been provided by the country of mexico (which in my guess would have been none)

Take a deep breath, walk away from the monitor for 5 minutes. Have a cool drink & then take another look at what I said in post #157.

And do you have any idea how hard it would take do that? It took a supreme court case just to get the maranda warning read to the suspect being arrested.

The US ratified the treaty and should keep the treaty, but I will bet that most state court judges and local police forces have never heard of it
also you should look into the reasons the treaty even exists, the US justice system guarantee's legal representation to anyone put on trial here and even provides it for free to those who can not afford it (not always the best representation, but alot better than I would get in mexico from their government)
what other countries provide legal representation to foriegners arrested in their countries?

the treaty is supposed to give foriegners arrested in other countries a chance at some sort of representation in any legal charges against them in those countries, something the US already provides under our justice system.

even though the US did not tell the mexican consulate that 3 of their citizens had been arrested and were going to be tried, I can be sure that the legal representation provided by the justice system was better than any that would have been provided by the country of mexico (which in my guess would have been none)

And another thing! Were they illegals anyway?

And another thing! Were they illegals anyway?


That is immaterial. Your Supreme court has already ruled that full Constitutional rights are to be afforded to ANYONE on US soil be they citizens, tourists, or illegals.

Which is why they built a prison at Guantanmo to ensure that those prisoners would have no rights.

That is immaterial. Your Supreme court has already ruled that full Constitutional rights are to be afforded to ANYONE on US soil be they citizens, tourists, or illegals.

Which is why they built a prison at Guantanmo to ensure that those prisoners would have no rights.

German POWs were held in the US in POW camps. They did not get the full protection of the Constitution.

American citizens of Japanese origin were interned in the US during WW II without charge and lost their Constitutional rights during their internment.

The SCOTUS has, and continues to uphold, the right of the Executive Branch to make such an internment. It would, for example, be consistent with Supreme Court rulings on internment for the President to order the roundup and indefinite internment of all Muslims in the United States, whether or not they were US citizens. Without trial or hearing. In fact, all he has to do is declare a national emergency in order to do so. SCOTUS still thinks that's valid.

So, you were saying?

That is immaterial. Your Supreme court has already ruled that full Constitutional rights are to be afforded to ANYONE on US soil be they citizens, tourists, or illegals.

Which is why they built a prison at Guantanmo to ensure that those prisoners would have no rights.

However, Gitmo is US Soil and therefore, falls under US Law. However, it is a military base and therefore, falls under military jurisdiction. Anything that takes place there will fall under JAG!

However, Gitmo is US Soil and therefore, falls under US Law. However, it is a military base and therefore, falls under military jurisdiction. Anything that takes place there will fall under JAG!


No, Gitmo is NOT considered US Soil under the terms of the Constitution. Yes, military rules are in play there, however that does not imply Constitutional protections for the detainees held there.

If it were US Soil they would be entitled to their full Constitutional rights.

German POWs were held in the US in POW camps. They did not get the full protection of the Constitution.

American citizens of Japanese origin were interned in the US during WW II without charge and lost their Constitutional rights during their internment.

The SCOTUS has, and continues to uphold, the right of the Executive Branch to make such an internment. It would, for example, be consistent with Supreme Court rulings on internment for the President to order the roundup and indefinite internment of all Muslims in the United States, whether or not they were US citizens. Without trial or hearing. In fact, all he has to do is declare a national emergency in order to do so. SCOTUS still thinks that's valid.

So, you were saying?

And you would also have a point - IF the Mexicans in question had been arrested, detained, and charged due to a Presidential Finding under the Patriot Act, or under an Executive Order such as the Japanese were..

However they were not. They were arrested, charged, tried and convicted under regular state criminal court procedures and so - according to the Supreme Court - are guaranteed full Constitutional Protections.

And you would also have a point - IF the Mexicans in question had been arrested, detained, and charged due to a Presidential Finding under the Patriot Act, or under an Executive Order such as the Japanese were..

However they were not. They were arrested, charged, tried and convicted under regular state criminal court procedures and so - according to the Supreme Court - are guaranteed full Constitutional Protections.

Well, it would have been in accordance with treaty to notify the Mexican Consulate at the moment they were detained. However, they were never denied counsel, and they had a trial - a trial at least as equal as any that would have been given to a US citizen. So, aside from the lack of notification, what constitutional rights were they denied?

There have been other Mexicans who went through trial, etc., prior to the existence of the Patriot Act (indeed, prior to the Bush Administration) who claimed a loss of rights due to the non-notification of the Mexican government.

I'll let you in on a little secret. There wouldn't be much that a consular official can do if you violate a country's laws. Try getting arrested in Tijuana and see how much a consular official can do - if they even permit the contact - which they fail to do on a regular basis.

I have had friends arrested in Tijuana on trumped up charges - the police merely wanted to shake down an American for money. No contact was permitted with consular officials - no real charges were ever written down, although they were verbally spoken. One friend even was tortured - just to find out how much money we might have access to.

Did the American consulate ever do a damn thing? Even when notified later?

No. We were told we must have violated Mexican law - however unwritten - and must be aware that nothing can be done.

Well, it would have been in accordance with treaty to notify the Mexican Consulate at the moment they were detained. However, they were never denied counsel, and they had a trial - a trial at least as equal as any that would have been given to a US citizen. So, aside from the lack of notification, what constitutional rights were they denied?


You only need to violate the constitutional rights ONCE to have it be a judicial error worthy of an appeal under US law. There is no such thing as a "minor" violation of Constitutional rights when it comes to the judicial process. After all, the outcome of a trial and the fairness and quality of counsel is a non-issue if it turns out that Miranda was violated right at the time of arrest. This is a similar situation,


There have been other Mexicans who went through trial, etc., prior to the existence of the Patriot Act (indeed, prior to the Bush Administration) who claimed a loss of rights due to the non-notification of the Mexican government.


you are gettig sidetracked - the Patriot Act has nothing to do with these cases. and those previous arrests were also in contravention of the Vienna Conventions. Mexico just didn't bother appealing to the World Court until such time as a few cases hit death row. However the ICJ has now informed the US that they are in violation of their treaty obligations.

I'll let you in on a little secret. There wouldn't be much that a consular official can do if you violate a country's laws.

That is no secret. I've commented on that before here in this thread - that it would have done nothing to affect the outcome of the trial had they been given their rights. Just like whether a cop reads a little blurb at the time of arrest or not is unlikely to make a difference.

But if the cop doesn't read that little blurb then he has violated the Constitutional Rights of the suspect and the trial gets tossed.

There is a definite parallel.

And no, I'm not saying that I want murderers to go free on a technicality. Far from it. I'm saying that this treaty became the law of the land way back in '63. Don't you think that's enough time to get the proceedures in place to respect it if you want to be a party to it?

So put the proceedures in place, retry these three people and stick them back on death row, and then go forward from here following the tenents of that treaty - or withdraw from it.

What is so very wrong with the concept of living up to your word?


Try getting arrested in Tijuana and see how much a consular official can do - if they even permit the contact - which they fail to do on a regular basis.

I have had friends arrested in Tijuana on trumped up charges - the police merely wanted to shake down an American for money. No contact was permitted with consular officials - no real charges were ever written down, although they were verbally spoken. One friend even was tortured - just to find out how much money we might have access to.

Did the American consulate ever do a damn thing? Even when notified later?

No. We were told we must have violated Mexican law - however unwritten - and must be aware that nothing can be done.

So you have anecdotal evidence that Mexico also violates this treaty.

So what?

Do two wrongs suddenly make a right?

Or are you holding up Mexico as being indicative of the the high standard to which you want your own justice system to be held to?

Call me crazy, but I would have thought you'd want to exceed their benchmark. After all, you want to beable to call yourself the "greatest country in the world" don;t you? Does setting expectations as low as this live up to that slogan?

I think not...

I've been beaten by police in several European countries. I've been beaten by police in Ottawa and Toronto.

I think that the countries that are shouting the loudest about their high standards of conduct (which they claim they stick to better than the US) should hold themselves to their high standards - which they do not.

I've seen people half drowned by water cannon in Germany. No charges against policemen - no investigation - and no way to file a complaint.

I'm not saying it's the greatest country in the world - but until your policement think it's probably less harmful to pepper spray people and take them into custody for the night rather than beat them with truncheons and abandon them in the middle of nowhere fifty miles outside of Edmonton in the middle of winter, I'll be staying right here.

No, Gitmo is NOT considered US Soil under the terms of the Constitution. Yes, military rules are in play there, however that does not imply Constitutional protections for the detainees held there.

If it were US Soil they would be entitled to their full Constitutional rights.

How little you know about Gitmo. If the Stars and Stripes fly above it, it is US Soil. Gitmo is a US Military Base. Therefore, it falls under the jurisdiction of the US Government and that includes US Courts! If it didn't, then explain the SCOTUS's opinions regarding the prisoners there!

I've been beaten by police in several European countries. I've been beaten by police in Ottawa and Toronto.

Sounds very exciting. May I ask what you do for living/recreation to get this treatment?

I've been beaten by police in several European countries. I've been beaten by police in Ottawa and Toronto.

So Canada has police brutality on a wide scale too eh? Interesting!

I think that the countries that are shouting the loudest about their high standards of conduct (which they claim they stick to better than the US) should hold themselves to their high standards - which they do not.

Here here! So much for Benevolent Europe! I guess it goes to show that its ok to tell other nations how to run its police affairs while ignoring their own. One more reason to dispise some of Europe.

I've seen people half drowned by water cannon in Germany. No charges against policemen - no investigation - and no way to file a complaint.

I've seen that too. Here in the US, something like that happens, there is almost always an investigation because complaints are filed. And people call us stupid.

I'm not saying it's the greatest country in the world - but until your policement think it's probably less harmful to pepper spray people and take them into custody for the night rather than beat them with truncheons and abandon them in the middle of nowhere fifty miles outside of Edmonton in the middle of winter, I'll be staying right here.

Here here! That is why I visit other countries as seldom as possible and if I do, it is always on US Property with limited exposer outside of it.

Sounds very exciting. May I ask what you do for living/recreation to get this treatment?

Try protesting in some countries, being a US serviceman in others, and just getting drunk in Edmonton.

I don't for one minute believe that "all of Europe" or "Canada" are somehow filled with policemen who are completely enlightened individuals blessed with a complete inability to abuse people on a whim.

Oh, me neither. I was just curious.

The police in Edmonton are infamous for taking people they "dislike" and driving them outside of town in winter to a point in the middle of nowhere.

Of course, most freeze to death before they can reach any human habitation.

There are many people who have been killed this way. There have been investigations, but no prosecutions. Being a homeless person in Edmonton is a fatal occupation.

If Zepp had seen this as an American story, he would have held it up as yet another example of American brutality and the ills of the American system.

He needs to realize that you can pass all the laws you like, write all the policy you like, and have strong leaders - and someone, somewhere is going to act like a human being and abuse people.

It's not always, always a conspiracy from the top down. In fact, it rarely is so.

The police in Edmonton are infamous for taking people they "dislike" and driving them outside of town in winter to a point in the middle of nowhere.

Of course, most freeze to death before they can reach any human habitation.

There are many people who have been killed this way. There have been investigations, but no prosecutions. Being a homeless person in Edmonton is a fatal occupation.

If Zepp had seen this as an American story, he would have held it up as yet another example of American brutality and the ills of the American system.

He needs to realize that you can pass all the laws you like, write all the policy you like, and have strong leaders - and someone, somewhere is going to act like a human being and abuse people.

It's not always, always a conspiracy from the top down. In fact, it rarely is so.


In other words, you just want to turn the debate on the applicability of an ICJ ruling against your country and on your own Constitutional requirements into a "my country is better than your country" pissing contest.

*sigh*


At that point, you are abandoning your side of the debate for childishness, and wasting both my time and yours.



Also - try and get your insults right. The TWO cases where cops dumped homeless people on the outskirts of town resulting in death happened in Saskatoon - not Edmonton - and happened a decade apart. So far the only person who has faced charges on either case is the deputy police cheif for lying to the investigation. One other case where a homeless person was dumped resulted in the convictions of two police officers for unlawful confinement.

But I realize that facts are not relevant to some people.

It was a shameful thing done by some shameful men who I hope all get caught and nailed to a wall.

But unlike you don't excuse it by pointing out offenses in your country in some sort of sick "well it's OK as long as there are assholes elsewhere" theory. I will stand here and tell you that what happened should not have under the rule of law and the values of my country, and that I would hope that prolicies get put in place to rectify this problem in that police force and to ensure that it never happens again.

You and Corneliu, on the other hand, seem only to care about making excuses as to why legal rights taken away should be ignored.

That is pretty sad.

Maybe your country WOULD be the greatest in the world if more citizens actually cared enough to try and deal with your problems rather than just try and pretend like they don't matter using specious comparative logic.

In other words, you just want to turn the debate on the applicability of an ICJ ruling against your country and on your own Constitutional requirements into a "my country is better than your country" pissing contest.

Wait! States something that happens in Canada and you say he's trying to turn it? Boy you really don't like people talking smack about Canada do you? Well guess what, it happens in every country.

*sigh*

I agree

At that point, you are abandoning your side of the debate for childishness, and wasting both my time and yours.

And once again, you prove that you don't like hearing what is going on in your country or in others since it paints them in a bad light and you don't like that very well.

Also - try and get your insults right. The TWO cases where cops dumped homeless people on the outskirts of town resulting in death happened in Saskatoon - not Edmonton - and happened a decade apart. So far the only person who has faced charges on either case is the deputy police cheif for lying to the investigation. One other case where a homeless person was dumped resulted in the convictions of two police officers for unlawful confinement.

Can I see the article proving this please?

But I realize that facts are not relevant to some people.

And I guess you don't like it when bad things are exposed in Canada but relish those that take place in America. Nice double Standard.

It was a shameful thing done by some shameful men who I hope all get caught and nailed to a wall.

I agree wholeheartedly

But unlike you don't excuse it by pointing out offenses in your country in some sort of sick "well it's OK as long as there are assholes elsewhere" theory. I will stand here and tell you that what happened should not have under the rule of law and the values of my country, and that I would hope that prolicies get put in place to rectify this problem in that police force and to ensure that it never happens again.

Here again, I agree with you :)

You and Corneliu, on the other hand, seem only to care about making excuses as to why legal rights taken away should be ignored.

I make no excuses whatsoever. If crimes takes place, then I want the perps punished! I make no excuses about my countries problems. I was appaled at the Iraq prison scandal and cheered when they began to punish the people involved.

That is pretty sad.

Sad that you don't even no me whatsoever and are making assumptions about me that are NOT true. If you knew me in person, you would find out just how different I really am.

Maybe your country WOULD be the greatest in the world if more citizens actually cared enough to try and deal with your problems rather than just try and pretend like they don't matter using specious comparative logic.

That is what Congress is for. Another thing we need to do is kick out the special interest groups that have plagued our Legislative process. Nothing is effective because we have to make sure that all interest groups are satisfied. That is the problem with America! To many damn special interest groups.

That is pretty sad.

Maybe your country WOULD be the greatest in the world if more citizens actually cared enough to try and deal with your problems rather than just try and pretend like they don't matter using specious comparative logic.

Putting people on the defensive isn't about to help matters either.

I honestly have felt both sides have raised some valid points, and was actually *happy* to see a thread with some pretty intelligent real-world discussions going on (a rarity in NationStates).

That said, I think it would be interesting if everybody were to re-read through all the posts and find one (just one) thing that the other "side" said that they felt was a valid point. The process of doing this might illustrate not only the complexity of the real world, but might help to map out a possible compromise.

What? He makes an allegation, gets the city wrong, claims that the case involves the deaths of numerous homeless people on a regular basis when it hasn;t.... and I'M the one you need "proof" from?

Sheesh!

Fine: http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/?/news/2001/09/28/sask_police010928

I labelled it as two cases, although the second incident involved two men a decade after the first case (1990 and 2000). You can determine the date of the second case as it is a 2001 article and reference the two victims found the previous year.


If you want to split hairs and call it three cases, I won't argue with you.

Impeach him! IMPEACH HIM! IMPEACH HIM!!!
But only if his name is Clinton.


or if his names Anan(sp?)

The police in Edmonton are infamous for taking people they "dislike" and driving them outside of town in winter to a point in the middle of nowhere.

Of course, most freeze to death before they can reach any human habitation.

There are many people who have been killed this way. There have been investigations, but no prosecutions. Being a homeless person in Edmonton is a fatal occupation.

If Zepp had seen this as an American story, he would have held it up as yet another example of American brutality and the ills of the American system.

He needs to realize that you can pass all the laws you like, write all the policy you like, and have strong leaders - and someone, somewhere is going to act like a human being and abuse people.

It's not always, always a conspiracy from the top down. In fact, it rarely is so.

I've never heard that about Edmonton....are you thinking of the Neil Stonechild case in Saskatchewan? Not that I'm saying it doesn't happen...I lived in Edmonton for 6 years, and maybe it didn't hit the news...but I'd like some sources for this one...

How little you know about Gitmo. If the Stars and Stripes fly above it, it is US Soil. Gitmo is a US Military Base. Therefore, it falls under the jurisdiction of the US Government and that includes US Courts! If it didn't, then explain the SCOTUS's opinions regarding the prisoners there!


I know you know how to read. I just wish you would learn to exercise that capactiy.

The Supreme Court decision maintained that Gitmo WAS under the soveregnty of Cuba (it's only leased property you know - you don't own it). However it based it's ruling (a 6-3 decision) on the issue that the prisoners were withing the jurisdictional control of the US, and that they could not be held without access to a hearing. However they clearly also stated that the prisoners were not entiteld to full Constitutional rights as they would under federal law.

To whit, Guantanamo is STILL not "US soil", and the Administration was always very up front that the initial reason why the prison was put there was to ensure that they would not receive full Constitutional rights, just as I stated. The fact that the SCOTUS's decision gave the detainees ANY rights was very dissapointing to the administration which fought them tooth and nail to deny them those rights.

Feel free to go read the ruling yourself.

The land may not be US Soil but the BASE IS US SOIL!

And do you have any idea how hard it would take do that? It took a supreme court case just to get the maranda warning read to the suspect being arrested.
The level of difficulty, although it would be mild, is immaterial. L.E.O.'s could be handed the script and they would read it to the individuals they arrest. Big Whoop!

German POWs were held in the US in POW camps. They did not get the full protection of the Constitution.

American citizens of Japanese origin were interned in the US during WW II without charge and lost their Constitutional rights during their internment.

The SCOTUS has, and continues to uphold, the right of the Executive Branch to make such an internment. It would, for example, be consistent with Supreme Court rulings on internment for the President to order the roundup and indefinite internment of all Muslims in the United States, whether or not they were US citizens. Without trial or hearing. In fact, all he has to do is declare a national emergency in order to do so. SCOTUS still thinks that's valid.

So, you were saying?
Under martial law the bill of rights is suspended.

The Germans were treated extremely well and in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, as was the law.

The interments during WWII are widely recognized as an overreaction. Notice, even GWB hasn't done that now. You are speaking as though he had.

The land may not be US Soil but the BASE IS US SOIL!

No Corneliu, legally it is not. The term "American soil" refers to those lands over which you exercise full sovereign rights. That includes Embassy properties overseas or any land which was ceeded to you for permanent military bases.

An American base on leased land such as Gitmo is (and Subic was) are areas of your jurisdictional control but from a strictly legal standpoint are not your "soil".

It is a fine legal hair and the difference is marginal - but that difference still exists. Like I said, go read your own Supreme Court since you refuse to believe me despite my long history of proving how wrong you are on multiple points.

Under martial law the bill of rights is suspended.

The Germans were treated extremely well and in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, as was the law.

The interments during WWII are widely recognized as an overreaction. Notice, even GWB hasn't done that now. You are speaking as though he had.

He was saying that it was well within his rights to round them up and to intern them not that he actually did, he didn't otherwise it'll be blasted over every media network.

No Corneliu, legally it is not. The term "American soil" refers to those lands over which you exercise full sovereign rights. That includes Embassy properties overseas or any land which was ceeded to you for permanent military bases.

An American base on leased land such as Gitmo is (and Subic was) are areas of your jurisdictional control but from a strictly legal standpoint are not your "soil".

It is a fine legal hair and the difference is marginal - but that difference still exists. Like I said, go read your own Supreme Court since you refuse to believe me despite my long history of proving how wrong you are on multiple points.

Look! All I know is that our Military Police patrols the area and our soldiers defend it. As far as I'm concerned, because the Supreme Court has no idea about the military, that means that the base is US Property and anything to deal with that base is done through the US.

If it isn't our land, then why are things not going through Cuban Courts but through American Courts?

Look! All I know is that our Military Police patrols the area and our soldiers defend it. As far as I'm concerned, because the Supreme Court has no idea about the military, that means that the base is US Property and anything to deal with that base is done through the US.

If it isn't our land, then why are things not going through Cuban Courts but through American Courts?


In other words, you have no respect for the laws of your own land, and feel that YOUR opinion on the legality of something is more important than the Supreme Court.

But hey, it's "all you know", so that should be enough...

:rolleyes:

In other words, you have no respect for the laws of your own land, and feel that YOUR opinion on the legality of something is more important than the Supreme Court.

But hey, it's "all you know", so that should be enough...

:rolleyes:

I have the greatest respect for the laws of our lands. What I don't respect is the United States Supreme Court interfering with Military Court Procedings. The only time they get involved is those dealing with the death Penalty.

The Military Tribunals should be the only ones to determine innocence or guilt of the terrorists captured on the field of battle. No one else. The terrorist ARE getting a fair trial with all the bells and whistles. J.A.G is handling the lawyer end of things.

BTW: J.A.G. is the Judge Advocate General. Military Lawyers.

I have the greatest respect for the laws of our lands. What I don't respect is the United States Supreme Court interfering with Military Court Procedings. The only time they get involved is those dealing with the death Penalty.

The Military Tribunals should be the only ones to determine innocence or guilt of the terrorists captured on the field of battle. No one else. The terrorist ARE getting a fair trial with all the bells and whistles. J.A.G is handling the lawyer end of things.

BTW: J.A.G. is the Judge Advocate General. Military Lawyers.

You'd have a point - Except for the simple fact that the detainees wouldn't even be getting that without the Supreme Court. The court did not "interfere" with procedings, it simply required them to happen.


But hey, if you think the Military is the supreme law of the land and not subject to oversight, then I hope that you will find yourself in the minority of your countrymen.

You'd have a point - Except for the simple fact that the detainees wouldn't even be getting that without the Supreme Court. The court did not "interfere" with procedings, it simply required them to happen.

Its always been like that Zeppistan! It goes back to the 1940s and even all the way back to the Civil War for Military Tribunals. All of whom had a fair trial and appealed their sentences to the US Supreme Court. That is the only purpose of the US Supreme Court dealing with Military Tribunals.

But hey, if you think the Military is the supreme law of the land and not subject to oversight, then I hope that you will find yourself in the minority of your countrymen.

Again, stop making assumptions about me Zeppistan. It really is getting annoying. I would never consider the Military the supreme Law of the land. The military already has oversight and it is called the US Congress. And the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and nothing will ever change that. However, the 9th Circuit Court is dangerously close to violating it.

Its always been like that Zeppistan! It goes back to the 1940s and even all the way back to the Civil War for Military Tribunals. All of whom had a fair trial and appealed their sentences to the US Supreme Court. That is the only purpose of the US Supreme Court dealing with Military Tribunals.


Again, stop making assumptions about me Zeppistan. It really is getting annoying. I would never consider the Military the supreme Law of the land. The military already has oversight and it is called the US Congress. And the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and nothing will ever change that. However, the 9th Circuit Court is dangerously close to violating it.

Well then learn to present you argument clearly!

You call the Supreme Court forcing the military to actually allow tribunals "interfering in hearings" which is patently incorrect. And now you talk about these tribunals in a historic context as fair trials completely ignoring the fact that in those historical cases the ability to receive a hearing was automatic wheras this time the government tried to disallow even this basic right.


You then state a preference that the only judicial body with any mandate to provide oversight to the military not be allowed to do so. That implies that the Military be an entity without answerability in a legal framework.


If I make assumptions it is because you make wild, sweeping statement which are horribly bereft of any sort of basis in fact.

The Europeans are bloody hipocrites. They can bash and bash us until pigs fly, but are themselves evil and corrupt. Jesus Christ we need to rid this world of the God Damn Europeans and the stupidity and jealousy brought upon by our twisted cousins in Europe. I say, screw all things European, yea embargo their products. They can't live without us but they act as if we are a world trouble. Europe needs to shape up. God, we should ally with Japan and take over the world.

Well then learn to present you argument clearly!

I did. You just didn't see it.

You call the Supreme Court forcing the military to actually allow tribunals "interfering in hearings" which is patently incorrect. And now you talk about these tribunals in a historic context as fair trials completely ignoring the fact that in those historical cases the ability to receive a hearing was automatic wheras this time the government tried to disallow even this basic right.

Bull! Come on Zeppistan. I thought you knew better than that. Their basic rights have never been violated and don't even think about bringing up being held without charge. People may claim that but is it 100% true? They are getting their basic rights! They are not POWs but we are providing for their needs and the Military Tribunals are perfectly legal and are being done in the accordence with the law.

You then state a preference that the only judicial body with any mandate to provide oversight to the military not be allowed to do so. That implies that the Military be an entity without answerability in a legal framework.

SCOTUS's only purpose is to make sure that the sentences handed down are fair.

If I make assumptions it is because you make wild, sweeping statement which are horribly bereft of any sort of basis in fact.

Facts are in the eyes of the beholder. What you constitute as fact may not be what others will constitute as fact. Facts and truth are subjective.

Bull! Come on Zeppistan. I thought you knew better than that. Their basic rights have never been violated and don't even think about bringing up being held without charge. People may claim that but is it 100% true? They are getting their basic rights! They are not POWs but we are providing for their needs and the Military Tribunals are perfectly legal and are being done in the accordence with the law.


yes, unless you count being tortured and denied access to legal redress or representation "basic rights". Odd how they show up as such in your own bill of rights isn't it?


SCOTUS's only purpose is to make sure that the sentences handed down are fair.


You clearly have no idea of the mandate of your own supreme court. Sentancing "fairness" is rarely an issue that goes before it. passing judgement on whether a legal issue is in accordance with the Constitution makes up the bulk of it's work.


Facts are in the eyes of the beholder. What you constitute as fact may not be what others will constitute as fact. Facts and truth are subjective.

Nice excuse for why you feel that facts are not anything you are bound by. yes conclusions and some truths are open for debate, however the mandate of SCOTUS and the direct text of it's rulings are not open to further interpretation by you as to whether they matter or not. Unless, of course, like I said before you don't care about the law of the land.

However, in that case, please excuse yourself from debating on that subject.

yes, unless you count being tortured and denied access to legal redress or representation "basic rights". Odd how they show up as such in your own bill of rights isn't it?

Torture? At Gitmo? Comeon. Define what torture your talking about!

You clearly have no idea of the mandate of your own supreme court. Sentancing "fairness" is rarely an issue that goes before it. passing judgement on whether a legal issue is in accordance with the Constitution makes up the bulk of it's work.

The Supreme Court then by your definition shouldn't be involved in Military Tribunals. You have no idea how a military tribunal works do you?

Nice excuse for why you feel that facts are not anything you are bound by. yes conclusions and some truths are open for debate, however the mandate of SCOTUS and the direct text of it's rulings are not open to further interpretation by you as to whether they matter or not. Unless, of course, like I said before you don't care about the law of the land.

Excuse? Zeppistan, your just as guilty about it as I am and don't even try to deny it. However, regarding the Supreme Court. We could debate any issue that the Supreme Court decided. It won't change the outcome but you can debate it. I have debated many Supreme Court decisions in the past, most recently the Michigan Affirmative Action Case. I can't do a thing about it but it can be debated if SCOTUS made the right call or not.

However, in that case, please excuse yourself from debating on that subject.

No!

I don't think it is UN policy to rape little girls. Do you? I hope not.

Predators emerge where they can abuse the vulnerable. For example: sexual molestation by clergy.

The UN has been active in arresting these assholes as you can see from the articles.

It is not official UN policy. In comparison, the Abu Ghraib incident seems to be the result of US policy towards torture. The comparison isn't exactly fair.


Can't agree more, BTW it was only posted here as a result of the continue UN bashing of some rednecks.Far worse then the so called US bashing by those same.

Can't agree more, BTW it was only posted here as a result of the continue UN bashing of some rednecks.Far worse then the so called US bashing by those same.

At least when we have a scandal, it is blasted coast to coast and something is done about it.

Nothing has been done regarding the UN Scandals. The only reason why some of these scandals have come out is because former UN Workers speak out about it.

Torture? At Gitmo? Comeon. Define what torture your talking about!


Privation of sleep during days, locking prisonars a small room were they can only stand during days while hard rock is exploding at 70db, electroshocks and all the rest from the torure book.
If you denie that, you denie the daylight, all ex prisonars testified about it. Oh yeah they are terrorists, Jezus why are people so blind when it comes to their crimes.

Privation of sleep during days, locking prisonars a small room were they can only stand during days while hard rock is exploding at 70db, electroshocks and all the rest from the torure book.
If you denie that, you denie the daylight, all ex prisonars testified about it. Oh yeah they are terrorists, Jezus why are people so blind when it comes to their crimes.

Sleep prevention is not torture. If that is the case then maybe you should bring up every college on torture charges. Small rooms? Again not torture. Loud sounds? Not torture though Barney Song could be classified as torture.

So tell me again what you define torture as?

Nothing has been done regarding the UN Scandals. The only reason why some of these scandals have come out is because former UN Workers speak out about it.

What a BS, so because of Auschwitz you may start another one, gassing Germans?
The only reason you speak about this is not because of the girls or prostitutes (since you excuse/denie the torturing of the US regime, I don't think you are in the right place to condem something) but because you can use it as a weapon in your anti UN crusade and as a excuse for the torturing in US prisons in Afghanistan, Gtmo, Iraq aso. My two cts.

Sleep prevention is not torture.

I am sorry, it is. Just like placing electrods in your private parts. Jezus you really denie the daylight and think that the world is flat. By, greetings to the obertorturemaster in command (family at Gitmo or a SM adept?)

I am sorry, it is. Just like placing electrods in your private parts. Jezus you really denie the daylight and think that the world is flat. By, greetings to the obertorturemaster in command (family at Gitmo or a SM adept?)

Electrodes I can understand but Sleep Prevention is NOT torture. Its standard procedure! Everyone does sleep preventions

What a BS, so because of Auschwitz you may start another one, gassing Germans?
The only reason you speak about this is not because of the girls or prostitutes (since you excuse/denie the torturing of the US regime, I don't think you are in the right place to condem something) but because you can use it as a weapon in your anti UN crusade and as a excuse for the torturing in US prisons in Afghanistan, Gtmo, Iraq aso. My two cts.

I have condemned the torture in Iraq and applauded that it is getting cleaned up and the people punished or are being punished for it.

Sleep Prevention is NOT torture. Its standard procedure! Everyone does sleep preventions

Sorry kid, when it is done during days, it is. Psychologists and medics call it one of the hardest, it also can cause lifelong trauma's.