Whitehouse Gives The OK to use ... Child Soldiers

[ProgressiveLiberal]

It's bad enough that we live in a country where we round up Muslims and place them into "rendition camps" where they receive neither the protections of the Geneva Conventions nor basic human rights. It's bad enough that we live in a country that allows it's richest 1% to take away the homes of middle class working families based on forged and illegal paperwork. It's bad enough that we live in a country where in order to travel in an airplane you must consent to either a dose of radiation or a humiliating search of your genitalia ....

But now... three weeks ago the Whitehouse OK'd the use of child soldiers, something that every civilized country views as completely abhorrent and immoral, by four countries: Chad , The Republic of the Congo, Sudan and Yemen. Last October 25th President Obama signed a Presidential memorandum waiving those four countries from the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008. This means we will continue to give foreign aid to countries that take 12 year olds away from their families, put guns into their hands and force them to kill people. You can view that memorandum right here.

“Everyone’s gotten a pass, and Obama has really completely undercut the law and its intent,” said Jo Becker, children’s rights advocacy director for Human Rights Watch.

My God, what kind of nation have we become? An Immoral, lawless nation of sycophants. How have we sunk this low?

[Catherina]

1. Obviously we have, A disgusted rec'd. n/t

[patrice]

43. Really? Obviously? . . . wow.

[avaistheone1]

2. Changealicious

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWraith]

15. Try reading actual factual information. You'll feel much better.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9581300&mesg_id=9581411

[Occulus]

36. Yeah, that's the memo. So?

This is the law itself. This memo does do exactly what you're telling me it doesn't.

Here's what he's exercising:

(c) NATIONAL INTEREST WAIVER.—
(1) WAIVER.—The President may waive the application to a country of the prohibition in subsection (a) if the President determines that such waiver is in the national interest of the United States.
(2) PUBLICATION AND NOTIFICATION.—Not later than 45 days after each waiver is granted under paragraph (1), the President shall notify the appropriate congressional committees of the waiver and the justification for granting
such waiver.

And THIS is what it waives:

a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsections (b), (c), and (d), the authorities contained in section 516 or 541 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j or 2347) or section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2763) may not be used to provide assistance to, and no licenses for direct commercial sales of military equipment may be issued to, the government of a country that is clearly identified, pursuant to subsection (b), for the most recent year preceding the fiscal year in which the authorities or license would have been used or issued in the absence of a violation of this title, as having governmental armed forces or government- supported armed groups, including paramilitaries, militias, or civil defense forces, that recruit and use child soldiers.

This is disgusting. How can you possibly defend this?

And no, I don't feel better (wtf?!!?!)..... I feel completely betrayed.

This is not the man I voted for.

[Walk dont run]

5. by Presidential Wavier

President Obama signed a Presidential memorandum waiving....

What the F. It wasn't okay under Bush but it is Okay under Obama? What is going on here?

I don't get it.

[nc4bo]

46. and audicously full of hope.

Wish I knew in '08 what I know now.

I'd rather the balloon had popped sooner than later, at least I wouldn't be so shocked, disgusted and hope-less about the next couple years.

[nofurylike]

3. for those wanting to know the facts:

http://themcglynn.com/?p=35990

-snip-

Administration officials have said, however, that cutting off military aid to those four countries as required by the law would do more harm than good. And they have said that continuing close cooperation with them can be a more effective way of changing their practices.

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the countries who received the waiver deserve more time to correct their practices.

“In each of these countries we are working with the governments to stop the recruitment of child soldiers or demobilize those who may already be in the ranks,” Crowley said. “These countries have put the right policies in place but are struggling to effectively implement them. These waivers allow the United States to continue to conduct valuable training programs.”

***

[ProgressiveLiberal]

6. Your facts are correct - we COMPROMISED on the issue of child soldiers.....

We've been compromised so heavily in this country lately that I feel ashamed to call it America any more.

Compromise on DADT
Compromise on unemployment extensions
Compromise on The Patriot Act
Compromise on Health care.

[Walk dont run]

8. Thanks for the info

I feel better now knowing that we are encouraging them not us child soldiers as we give them guns and aid. They just haven't yet implimented it. Good info.

[nofurylike]

10. y'welcome. thanks. they are implementing: "These countries

have put the right policies in place but are struggling to effectively implement them. These waivers allow the United States to continue to conduct valuable training programs.”

[ProgressiveLiberal]

11. Valuable training programs.....

with child soldiers.

It's unconscionable. Period.

[nofurylike]

12. training programs to end the use of child soldiers, as is directed

by the act itself.

[Erose999]

39. The act that these countries now have a waiver from. So that they can continue to recruit child

soldiers. Who will then participate in training directed against the recruitment of child soldiers.

I really don't see any reason why we should compromise or hedge on this issue. The use of child soldiers by any nation.. friend/foe/strategically important/unimportant... doesn't matter. It is universally appalling and there's no excuse for it.

If we have allies who use child soldiers, or if we achieve compromise on foreign policy in such a way that the use of child soldiers is even "put on the table," what does that say about us and our principles.

Fuck Obama for signing that memo.

[patrice]

17. And would it be unconsciounable to be completely shut out of the situation and thus leave

the child soldiers to other powers in the situation which are going to provide the weapons anyway? "The tender mercies of the wicked are cruel."

[patrice]

16. It's a question of doing the single MOST powerful thing you can do in an evil situation or being sh

ut out completely and having no power over the situation at all.

Not that REALITY matters around here . . . .

At DU, ideology reigns, so it's better to abandon the child soldiers to whomever (who will, btw, see to it that the weapons are delivered anyway), so that "we" can get a buzzz on for how righteous "we" are.

[nofurylike]

18. well said, patrice. that is even the intent of the act, itself. nt

[ProgressiveLiberal]

19. Well, I think what you described is called "compromise"....

as in compromising one's morals for a "greater good".

Come on - we're talking child soldiers here. We wouldn't even be having this discussion in the 70's, 80's or 90's. We're talking about giving financial aid to countries who make 12 years olds murderers.

And we're talking about just four countries. We continue to withhold funds from many other countries who use child soldiers. But for one reason or another , someone is getting something from those four countries that make it profitable for us to close our eyes to atrocity.

It's all about profit - not about morality.

When I was growing up, it was the "evil Communists" who we would never deal with because they were against all our supposed American principles. Billions of war dollars were spent "protecting us" from the "evil Communists" And today, now that the Communists are highly profitable, they are our biggest trading partner. We give up American jobs in order to build factories in China .

And here we go again - only now we turn a blind eye to child slave soldiers. And some few Americans (on this thread at least) appear to agree with the policy.

For shame, for shame.

[patrice]

23. See my post #22 below. The ability to compromise appropriately comes from Strength

and the willingness to do the hard things, not just what looks good to the simple-minded media.

[PerpetuallyDazed]

38. If our continued involvement there prevents potential future child soldiers

from being ripped from their families, I see that as a good thing.

"It's all about profit - not about morality" = the way the world works. When the opportunity presents itself and we're cognizant enough to recognize it, we can channel those greedy motivations and profit making machines towards a greater good.

[dflprincess]

49. And at least while we're encouraging them to not use child soldiers

we can all take comfort in knowing that we have supplied those child soldiers with the best weapons our tax money can buy. :sarcasm:

I hope Obama thinks of these children when he tucks his daughters safely into their beds each night.

[MisterP]

44. exactly like the 1979-80 funding of El Salvador's military, once coupled with

demands for human-rights improvements, made everything way better in that country in the 80s

right?

right?...

crap

[patrice]

48. APPEARS to be "exactly like the 1979-80 . . . " that is, unless you have more information than

ANYONE else here or in D.C.

[Goldstein1984]

7. We stand upon our principles

Which makes them much easier to grind into the mud whenver convenient.

[nofurylike]

9. relevant facts about the act itself:

from below segment:

Countries ... recruiting or using child soldiers ... would be eligible only for military assistance to address the issue of child soldiers and otherwise professionalize their armed forces until the problem is remedied.

**

(which is exactly what was decided about these four countries.)



The Child Soldier Prevention Act of 2007 would put restrictions on U.S. military assistance for governments that use child soldiers.

http://www.worldvision.org/content.nsf/learn/globalissues-childprotection-conflict-bill

-snip-

The Child Soldier Prevention Act of 2007, sponsored by Senators Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Sam Brownback (R-KS), is designed to encourage governments to disarm, demobilize and rehabilitate child soldiers from government forces and government-supported militias.

Using the Department of State’s Country Reports on Human Rights as a barometer, this bill would place limits on the provision of U.S. International Military Education and Training, Foreign Military Financing and other defense-related assistance in our foreign operations programs for countries in violation of the bill’s standards.

Countries that are clearly identified in the Human Rights Report as recruiting or using child soldiers in government armed forces or government-supported paramilitaries or militias in violation of international standards would be eligible only for military assistance to address the issue of child soldiers and otherwise professionalize their armed forces until the problem is remedied.

-snip-

***

[JNelson6563]

45. Letting facts get in the way of a good story.

[dflprincess]

50. " is designed to encourage governments to disarm, demobilize and rehabilitate child soldiers "

"this bill would place limits on the provision of U.S. International Military Education and Training, Foreign Military Financing and other defense-related assistance in our foreign operations programs for countries in violation of the bill’s standards."

Weasel words. Each of those statements have loopholes written in to them.

And then there's this

" ...would be eligible only for military assistance to address the issue of child soldiers and otherwise professionalize their armed forces until the problem is remedied."

Because countries that are so scummy they use child soldiers can be trusted to use what assistance they are eligible for to train adults, not more children to be soldiers.

I don't know who is worse, some 3rd world nation that uses child soldiers or an alleged "civilized" county that pays lip service to how awful it is, but still keeps throwing money at the governments doing this.

[nofurylike]

13. btw, the waiver does NOT give "The OK to use ... Child Soldiers"

i suggest you read it. but i have included enough facts, on the act and the waiver, in this thread for you to be assured the waiver does NOT give any such "OK to use ... Child Soldiers."

[Erose999]

40. Of course not, hence why its just a waiver. The waiver doesn't say we want to encourage it it just

says that we will tolerate it.

[TheWraith]

14. Uh, NO. Did you actually READ the relevant portion before you went around screaming?

Section 404(a), the part that Obama is waiving, is the requirement for the United States missions in those countries to produce a report on the use of child soldiers. In other words, it's waiving paperwork for the US embassies in countries where we already know the situation and are working to correct it, even as the they work on implementing the requirements of the act. It IN NO WAY waives, repeals, or nullifies the relevant portions of the act with regard to the actual use of child soldiers.

[nofurylike]

20. thank you for that critically important information, TheWraith! nt

[ProgressiveLiberal]

21. No, it allows us to give foreign aid to those 4 countries that use child slave soldiers.

Which is contrary to the law that Congress passed in 08.

I am sickened to point out that it was a Republican Congress that passed the law and a Democratic President who waved it :(

[nofurylike]

26. "eligible only for military assistance to address the issue of child

soldiers and otherwise professionalize their armed forces until the problem is remedied."

signed in 2009.
wasn't a republican congress.

the waivers are built into the act, applicable where countries are implementing the goal of ending the use of child soldiers, but need assistance to do so.

[Erose999]

41. So basically by eliminating the reports you sweep it under the rug. Hence why as I said before

we are tolerating it. What this section does is eliminates the paper trail that would hold our gov't accountable.

[patrice]

22. "What kind of nation" a nation of political opportunists who seek to benefit from child soldiers

by mis-characterizing the President's decision in the matter.

[HEyHEY]

24. It's much more grey than that, I reckon.

How many more people will die if this aid doesn't go through? How many children will join armies just to be fed?

[ProgressiveLiberal]

25. Well... we're talking about Republic of the Congo, Yeman, Sudan here....

and NONE of those countries are known for our foreign aid actually getting to the people involved.
The "aid" that we give them is much like the billions we gave to the Afghan warlords - it's more of a bribe to keep them on our "side".

Only in this case those four countries enslave children , conscript them into their army and force them to kill other children.

Here is an informative report on what this does to a child:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/africa/july-dec10/uganda_11-16.html

It's not anything that any other civilized western country, which includes Canada, condones.

[patrice]

And your solution is . . . ?

[ProgressiveLiberal]

30. Congress' solution was the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008

which prohibited us from, among other things, giving our foreign aid money to countries that used child slave soldiers.

I think not waiving that bill for those four countries would be a good start - but wasn't that easily implied in my O.P. ?

[patrice]

31. So Congress wrote the only perfect piece of legislation we've ever heard of and now the

President is over-riding it, because he likes child-soldiers.

:sarcasm:

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[patrice]

33. Funny, that's what I was thinking about you. Tell me why the President likes child-soldiers.

[nofurylike]

35. no. it is FOR "giving our foreign aid money" "to address the

issue of child soldiers and otherwise professionalize their armed forces until the problem is remedied."

it is important that you read the act if you want to comment so strongly on it.

[HEyHEY]

34. As I said, it's not always black and white

That's all I can say about this.

[Codeine]

27. That would be the White House.

Whitehouse was a rather extreme industrial band from the 80s.

[ProgressiveLiberal]

28. LOL - Thanks :)

[patrice]

29. Interesting error.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[patrice]

42. You know, of course, that you need to establish "reprehensibility" by laying out all possible

courses of action in their totality and indicate their positive and negative effects, so that we can then judge your basis for your claim.

Or are we just to accept that you are knowledgeable enough, more so than all of those who participated in this policy decision, to make this evaluation?

You know what, most of us CAN understand differences in subject-matter-expert opinions, but out right, rationally unjustified, pure OPINION is just simply worthless, no matter how many times someone repeats whatever the talking point is.

Are "we" really supposed to respect someone, you in this case, who acts exactly like that which "we" claim to abhor? Isn't that your criticism of the President?

[Cherchez la Femme]

47. Well, you know...

...one man's terrorist/child soldier is another man's simply underage Freedom Fighter!

USA! USA!1!

:puke:

[nofurylike]

51. i face that some do not want to know. i wish otherwise, but ... nt

[Greyhound]

52. K&R. What could possibly go wrong?

:eyes:

I'm sensing another "nobody could've predicted" event looming...

[defendandprotect]

53. Read this a few days ago -- glad you posted it ....

didn't have the strength to do it!!!

Wow!

[nofurylike]

54. so, to hell with the child soldiers in those countries? we're outa

there, because we condemn how the adults are using them?

the act is, in large part, designed to provide a means of influencing countries to end the enslavement of children as soldiers. you all appear to hold that act sacred, so consider why it would have such provisions if, any time a country commits that crime, we simply walk away, abandoning the children to that fate?