Posted on 02/12/2005 9:47:09 AM PST by saquin
UNITED NATIONS — A scandal about the sexual abuse of Congolese women and children by U.N. officials and peacekeepers intensified Friday with the broadcast of explicit pictures of a French U.N. worker and Congolese girls and his claim that there was a network of pedophiles at the U.N. mission in Congo.
ABC News' "20/20" program showed pictures taken from the computer of a French U.N. transport worker. The hard drive reportedly contained thousands of photos of him with hundreds of girls. In one frame, a tear can be seen rolling down the cheek of a victim.
The news report coincided with the U.N.'s new "zero- contact" rule banning any interaction between U.N. soldiers and locals in Congo.
The staffer, Didier Bourguet, 41, is facing charges of sexual abuse and rape in France. His lawyer, Claude de Boosere- Lepidi, said in court last week that there was a network of U.N. personnel who had sex with underage girls and that Bourguet had engaged in similar activity in a previous U.N. posting in the Central African Republic.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Just discusting.
Can you manage to spell two words properly?
I've seen that movie. Your recommendation has much merit.
No wonder Clinton is so enamored of the UN.
And "waitress sandwich" Kennedy.
bump
bump
Bill
bump
ER-AAH !
hehhehehehe
He got confused: he thought he was the prosecutor.
Here are the four primary problems as I see them, from the test of the article:
1.)But Swing said the problem was just recently brought to his attention, and that only a small percentage of the 11,000 U.N. personnel in Congo were involved.
"A few people have managed to basically cause disgrace for the mission and for the U.N., and that's why we're determined to conquer it. I have sent a dozen home," Swing said.
>>Okay we have 11,000 troops stationed and a dozen are sent home. Presumably there are more guilty parties whose involvement will be revealed, but for right now that is more than 1 in 1,000 who were party to this depravity. And all he has done is send them HOME!? I am sure the offended/injured Congolese feel much better that "only a small percentage..." ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
By extension the same percentage of U.S./coalition force involvement in scandalous acts within Iraq would lead us to have expected over 170 soldiers to have been implicated, out of some 160,000 or more troops. Instead, there seems to have been, at most, one or two dozen such rotten eggs. Those principals have been taken into custody, investigated, charged, and some already prosecuted and punished according to the U.C.M.J. No free trips home here!
In fairness that should be taken as a clear proof that we both set, and successfully adhere to, higher standards of behaviour. So then, I want to know: where is the loud and vitriolic hew and cry from Sen.'s Kennedy, Reid, Kerry, Boxer, Schumer, Pelosi, et al over this U.N. travesty to match the tone and tenor of their caterwauling about Abu Ghraib? Thus far, their silence is absolutely shamefully DEAFENING!<<
2.)Men from roughly 50 different countries make up the U.N. forces in Congo, and the United Nations does not conduct background checks. Furthermore, U.N. troops are exempt from prosecution in Congo.
>>This is, in my opinion, the uppermost problem. United States military personnel are held to the U.C.M.J. unflinchingly. Before they ever take their oath of service, their backgrounds are clearly known. When posted at duty stations abroad, if they commit a crime, their service branch retains the option to not only prosecute them under the military code, but also to turn them over under specified conditions to face the laws of the country in which the offense was committed - whichever is generally deemed more apropos.
U.N. troops, however, apparently get a free pass upon joining up with the blue-helmet brigade of brigands. No background check - no knowledge of possible criminal acts, or patterns. Once in, they gain an alarming degree of immunity. In the absence of accountability, they behave in a deplorable manner, knowing they are fully immune from prosecution, and probably most any other consequences of their actions.<<
3.)Another gaping problem U.N. officials failed to address is the hundreds of babies born to Congolese women and fathered by U.N. personnel.
>>Okay - just let me get this straight: One dozen men - maybe two dozen - have left behind literally hundreds of babies, the majority of them born to girls in their early or middle teens, and many of the babies the result of RAPE? That is a frighteningly prolific rate of procreation by "only a small percentage" of these 11,000 soldiers. I have to ask: Just when in the H*LL did they have time to do ANY actual soldiering?!<<
4.)And as of now, the United Nations said it will not take direct responsibility for babies abandoned by its troops, though Swing said the mission is "currently looking at a way to have a clearer and more viable paternity policy."
>>Why am I NOT SURPRISED at all? After all, the U.N. only,
a)hired these erstwhile mercenaries at a premium without investigating any of them,
b)stationed them amongst a war-torn, starving, impoverished and vulnerable population, primarily composed of women and children
c)issued them uniforms, weapons, salaries, and food, thus giving them authority and power with the stamp and expectation of legitimacy,
d)completely exempted them from prosecution in that country, thus insulating them from responsibility, and permitting all possible bad behaviours unchecked by natural consequences.
Just what DID they really expect to happen? Oh, and one more question: What exactly is a "clearer and more viable paternity policy", and why are they only "looking at a way" to have one, rather than swiftly and arbitrarily instituting one?!
I know, I must be hallucinating, right? One thing I am certain of - if these were U.S. troops in any country at twice the troop strength presently in Iraq, and half as many bad actors and documented abuses - the Liberal party would be HOWLING for scalps from the guilty all the way through the chain of command to the SecDef and even the President. They would also be busily asserting that such a thing would never have occurred if they were in charge.
How very sad.
Coffee Banana needs to go. He has been the head of the UN way to log.
Hanging is too good for this scum.
-- I'll do ya one better. We need to hammer our representatives, relentlessly, until they get the message to stop funding this clusterf@#k, and boot this hell-hole of an organization off sovereign US soil. --
I’m sending letters to my representatives right now! Feinstein, Boxer & Woolsey.
//SARCASM OFF//
This will really be an effective peace keeping/ policing force. No contact?? WTF is the point of even having them there? As usual, the UN proves itself to be be the totaly useless, inefective, and corrupt waste of money it is. Dismantle it.
This breaks my heart. The UN should be disolved now!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.