President Obama Waives Penalties On Countries That Use Child Soldiers

[FedUp_Queer]

President Barack Obama has decided to waive almost all the legally mandated penalties for countries that use child soldiers and provide those countries U.S. military assistance, just like he did last year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/05/obama-child-soldiers-waives-penalties_n_995379.html

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/10/04/obama_waives_penalties_on_countries_that_employ_child_soldiers_again

[atreides1]

1. What a wonderful idea

I have to wonder if he's not doing this to see how much BS he can get away with...knowing that his poll numbers show that he'll still win re-election!

I may just vote for members of Congress and my state and local elections, who are democrats, and do a write in for president next November.

[Pisces]

8. You sound so disappointed that his poll numbers are up?? Wonder why a democrat would

be upset that the Democratic nominee is leading the asshat Repukes in the field????

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[FedUp_Queer]

13. Sad that it all comes down to the horse race to you. Issues don't matter.

It must be easy to live in your world.

[ProSense]

2. Let me get this straight

<...>

President Barack Obama has decided to waive almost all the legally mandated penalties for countries that use child soldiers and provide those countries U.S. military assistance, just like he did last year.

The White House is expected to soon announce its decision to issue a series of waivers for the Child Soldiers Protection Act, a 2008 law that is meant to stop the United States from giving military aid to countries that recruit soldiers under the age of 15 and use them to fight wars. The administration has laid out a range of justifications for waiving penalties on Yemen, South Sudan, Chad, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, all of which amount to a gutting of the law for the second year in a row.

<...>

"President Obama's decision today to provide taxpayer funded military assistance to countries that use children as soldiers is an assault on human dignity," said Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE), vice chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health and Human Rights. "Good citizens of this country who do not want to be complicit in this grave human rights abuse must challenge this administration."

<...>

This piece is using a not-yet announced WH decision to argue a Republican point?

[Enrique]

3. lame, semantic defense

whether it's announced is just a technicality, the decision has been made.

In a meeting with NGO representatives on Tuesday afternoon at the White House, State Department officials, led by Deputy Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Dan Baer, explained this year's reasons why the White House will continue to give military funding to countries that use child soldiers.

[ProSense]

5. No

"lame, semantic defense"

...I prefer to get the whole story, and without Republican talking points. Here is Human Rights Watch's release:

US: Don’t Finance Child Soldiers

Obama Administration Aid Waivers Undercut US Law

(New York) – The US government should reverse its decision to continue military assistance to governments using child soldiers, Human Rights Watch said today. On October 4, 2011, the Obama administration announced waivers to the Child Soldiers Prevention Act, allowing military assistance to Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Yemen despite the continued use of children in their armed forces.

<...>

The Child Soldiers Prevention Act went into effect in 2010. President Barack Obama issued waivers in October to allow four affected countries – Chad, Congo, Sudan, and Yemen – to continue to receive military aid, contending that the countries were “on notice” and needed time to address their child soldiers problem. The president’s new determination allows three of the same countries to receive continued aid.

<...>

The government of the Democratic Republic of Congo will continue to receive US military training and other assistance, even though it has hundreds of child soldiers in its armed forces and has failed to cooperate with the United Nations in setting up a formal demobilization plan. Some army commanders have actively blocked efforts to demobilize children from their units. Officers known to recruit child soldiers – including Bosco Ntaganda, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court – have been promoted and serve openly in the army’s command.

The administration is withholding approximately US$1.3 million in foreign military financing from Congo until the government meets certain benchmarks, including signing a UN action plan to end its use of child soldiers, providing UN inspection teams access to military installations, and removing and prosecuting commanders that recruit children. The new waivers will allow other applicable assistance, including military training, to continue.

more

[Enrique]

10. what's the difference?

there's nothing wrong with the OP, and yet you took issue with it over something meaningless. The only problem with it is that it reports on something that makes Obama look bad.

[ProSense]

15. Well

what's the difference?

...for one thing, I dislike hypocritical Republicans. I also understand HRW's position, and the organization's release made clear what exactly transpired, including the fact that the law took effect in 2010. The administration's rationale is the same as it was when they first announced the policy. While HRW is objecting to the policy, as they did when it was first issued, they are no trying to pretend it's new or that no progress has been made.

[Enrique]

16. Fortenberry introduces bill to address child soldiers

http://www.votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=327700&keyword=&phrase=&contain=

Title: Fortenberry Introduces Bill to Address ‘Child Soldiers
Date: 10/22/2007
Location: Washington, DC
Press Release

Fortenberry Introduces Bill to Address ‘Child Soldiers'

Congressman Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska today emphasized the need to address atrocities stemming from the forcible use of child soldiers. He recently introduced the Child Soldier Prevention Act of 2007, legislation which urges the U.S. Government to take action against foreign governments and paramilitaries that coerce children into combat.

"Children belong on playgrounds not battlegrounds," Fortenberry said. "The use of child soldiers is one of the most egregious human rights violations of our times."

It is estimated that more than 250,000 children are currently exploited as child soldiers and tens of thousands of girls are subjected to rape and other forms of sexual violence as a result of this heinous practice. In many areas throughout the world, children who "volunteer" as child soldiers often do so because they are desperate to survive in combat-ravaged regions where their families and every semblance of community support have been devastated.

The Child Soldier Prevention Act condemns the conscription, forced recruitment or use of children by governments, paramilitaries, or other organizations in hostilities. The measure urges the U.S. Government to lead efforts to uphold international standards to end this abuse of human rights and expand efforts to recover and reintegrate child soldiers into their communities. It includes a provision to take into account the needs of girl soldiers, who can be severely ostracized when returning to their communities of origin. Also, it encourages U.S. embassies to take into account global best practices in their work to help end this pernicious human rights abuse.

[ProSense]

18. Does

"Fortenberry introduces bill to address child soldiers"

...that mean he isn't a typical Republican hypocrite?

This is from his House site:

Fortenberry's child soldiers measure, as signed into law on December 23, 2008, prohibits funds from being obligated to the government of a country identified by the Department of State as having governmental armed forces or government supported armed groups, including paramilitaries, militias, or civil defense forces, that recruit or use child soldiers, unless a presidential national security interest waiver is issued. President Obama issued waivers in 2010 for the governments of Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, and Yemen. Fortenberry authored a House-passed amendment to H.R. 1, the FY11 House continuing resolution, to prohibit funding for Chad due to its continued flouting of the law following the withdrawal of its UN mission.

From the HRW release:

The governments using child soldiers are due to receive over US$200 million in US military assistance for the 2012 fiscal year, which began on October 1. Only a portion of these funds are prohibited under the Child Soldiers Prevention Act.

Like I said, HRW is correct to push for change to this policy, and they do acknowledge the steps being taken.

Still, that doesn't mean that Fortenberry isn't a typical Republican hypocrite. He always votes against children's health care (CHIP) in this country and voted for the Republican's Cut, Cap and Balance plan that would devastate every social program to protect Americans.

Here is the bill that became law:

S.2135
Latest Title: Child Soldiers Accountability Act of 2008
Sponsor: Sen Durbin, Richard (introduced 10/3/2007) Cosponsors (9)
Related Bills:H.R.2620, H.R.3028, S.1175
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 110-340
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COSPONSORS(9), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)
Sen Brownback, Sam - 10/3/2007
Sen Coburn, Tom - 10/3/2007
Sen Dodd, Christopher J. - 10/15/2007
Sen Feingold, Russell D. - 10/3/2007
Sen Kerry, John F. - 10/15/2007
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. - 12/14/2007
Sen Lincoln, Blanche L. - 12/10/2007
Sen Menendez, Robert - 10/17/2007
Sen Obama, Barack - 10/15/2007

[rasputin1952]

22. I used to be in his district, he's nothing more than an incredibly stupid...

R rubber stamper.

Fortenberry is a slug...x(

[TheWraith]

17. Actually, there is something wrong with the OP. It's total bullshit.

It implies that Obama is waiving all penalties toward all countries that use child soldiers. Instead of what's actually happening, which is waiving sanctions against a few countries where their legal age to join the military is 1-3 years below the legally sanctioned age of 18.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. I thought the Republican point was to SUPPORT the MIC in any and all

circumstances.

When Obama takes a Republican position, any opposition to it is taking a Republican point because it is against Obama?

The convolutions in your mind never fail to astound me.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[woo me with science]

27. This particular "convolution" should sicken anyone

with an ounce of human decency.

[TheKentuckian]

11. You disagree with rep? Why?

[Ignis]

19. How is opposing the use of child soldiers "a Republican point?"

Some of us are humans first, and Democrats second.

[woo me with science]

26. Thank you. Good god, what will be defended next? nt

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vanje]

9. Clearly, Obama is not interested in a second term.

nt

[Cigar11]

14. Oh well ...

I guess if no one cared about building schools for little girls in War Zones, I’m sure they won’t mind defend it after we get out.

[bhikkhu]

20. One of those headlines you just know is a lie, without even looking it up

the media continues to impress - I'm sure the writers will get a notable surge in unique page visit numbers, something to boast about around the water cooler.

[Enrique]

21. not a lie

take it back. Defending Obama is fine, smearing people that report things he is doing is wrong.

[bhikkhu]

23. "Smearing people is wrong" - yes, but is exaggeration for effect close enough to a lie?

I don't know...I think the trust of the heading was calculated to incite anger, but if you look at the problem reasonably, you come up with about what the administration decided (and I did have to do some reading up on it).

There are three countries at issue. The first one is Chad, where the UN says there were no cases of recruitment of children into the military over the past year, and where 1000 children were turned over from the military to UN reintegration programs. So Chad has been working with the UN and has satisfied the goals so far.

The second country is the DRC, where compliance has been questionable and monitoring has been less, due to the large and complex nature of the country. They've made efforts, but the whole thing sounds much more fractured and difficult. Not having satisfied the criteria, they receive no direct military aide, but it does receive military training directed towards - to put it bluntly - transforming them from a band of bloody thugs to a modern military with principles and moral standards, upholding the rule of law and human rights. I don't think its a bad idea to stay involved in the DRC in this manner.

In Yemen there is nothing particularly good to say. The government is weak and disorganized and the military ineffective and abusive...which would be a reason to avoid the place like the plague, except that we have been allied to them for years in the "war on terror". I don't think it has done them or us any good, but the military justification is difficult to get around; if we don't support them the place winds up an even bigger problem, like Somalia or Afghanistan. So we know its wrong, but we're stuck because the alternative is worse. I suppose that could easily be argued, but its the opinion of people who know a lot more than me...

That's it though - those three countries, and each one with its unique situation. I suppose if they want to lead with an inflammatory headline and open with an unjustifieable statement just to get people reading, that's their business; one problem wit that, however, which comes up way too often, is how few people read past the first paragraph anyway. At least at the very end they do link through to the WH reasoning.

[Enrique]

24. at least you didn't attack the OP's sexual orientation

which is what one very loyal Obama supporter here did. I now wish I hadn't alerted on the post, getting that post deleted did the homophobe a favor.

[FedUp_Queer]

25. Clarifications.

First, all I used the headline there because that was the headline I linked to. That's why. Second, I think your "explanation" is kind of disingenuous. One of the big issues is the fact that NGOs felt that the administration lied to and mislead them last year when it said that THIS year it would be different. I make no bones about my dislike about the administration. However, I will give credit where credit is due. I don't understand why administration supporters can find no fault in anything it does. Finally, and most importantly, thank you for not attacking my sexual identity as at least one person here did.

[bhikkhu]

28. I could narrow it down to Yemen, and say we're doing no good there

and then broaden the case to the effects of the "war on terror" to Pakistan, which has been disintegrating from within for 10 years now.

I don't think the administration in any way condones or encourages the use of children in war, and they have actually put in a great deal of effective diplomacy to discourage it. But on the other hand, if you want some balancing criticism, I don't think our approach to Yemen or to Pakistan, or to Afghanistan, is doing any good for anyone. We're stuck in the same destructive mess in those places that we were under bush. Not every problem has an immediate solution, but I don't think using war as a tool of foreign policy is heading us toward a solution at all...

...and no problem with anyone's sexual identity - I had a nice time last weekend at a gay pride parade with my daughters :)