hard to resist posting this

[gh0st]

There’s outrage at the United Nations. A U.N. worker was accused of genocide and yet was allowed to stay on the U.N. payroll.

The carnage was horrific. Some 800,000 Tutsis were slaughtered in 1994 by rampaging Hutus in Rwanda. Among those alleged to have done the killing is an employee of the U.N. in Rwanda — a Hutu named Callixte Mbarushimana.

Today, Mbarushimana remains a free man, living in Paris. But there are troubling questions about his conduct in Rwanda a decade ago and the actions of the United Nations.

"They killed on his orders," says Tony Greig, an investigator with the International Criminal Tribunal. "They manned road blocks, they killed people, they got rewarded with cows and beer."

Greig says eyewitnesses directly linked Mbarushimana to more than 30 murders, including killings of fellow U.N. workers.

In witness statements obtained by NBC News, one eyewitness says, "Mbarushimana... shot [a man] in the head as he was standing up." Another claims Mbarushimana "told his [men] to shoot them. The people on the ground were all then shot whilst they were sitting down."

Among those Mbarushimana is accused of killing is a woman and other fellow U.N. employees.

"He was a U.N. employee," says Greig. "He abused his position in the U.N. to kill other U.N. workers."

So what did the United Nations do?

After learning of the allegations in 1999, the U.N. kept Mbarushimana on its payroll. In fact, when he was arrested for genocide, he was working for the U.N. in Kosovo — on a project to stop genocide.

In an exclusive interview with NBC News, Mbarushimana condemns genocide and denies wrongdoing.

"I am innocent of any of the allegations," he says. "No, I have not murdered anybody. I have not participated in the ordering of killing of anybody."

The charges against Mbarushimana eventually were dismissed. Prosecutors say the evidence wasn't strong enough. Investigators dispute that and say prosecutors decided to focus instead on leaders of the genocide and considered Mbarushimana a mid-level figure.

"The decision not to prosecute him was made on the grounds of expediency, not legal grounds, however the U.N. wants to dress it up," says Greig. "He killed many, many people."

This year, investigators were further outraged when a U.N. tribunal ruled that Mbarushimana had been treated unfairly because he was not re-hired after charges were dropped. The tribunal awarded him 13 months of back pay.

Mbarushimana says the accusations have ruined his life. He has been separated from his wife and three children for six years and forced to live as refugee in Paris, where he has no job and has not actually received any compensation to date.

"My family has suffered a lot," he says. "They have suffered because of the lack of financial assets and the education of my children — who are very young — has been interrupted."

U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard says the U.N. has to abide by the tribunal's ruling, even if awarding back pay to a man accused of genocide and of murdering U.N. employees seems absurd.

"It certainly does [seems absurd]," says Eckhard. "But again, the tribunal considered that this person had not been proven guilty. And, in fact, he hasn't."

Many U.N. officials are furious and embarrassed and some investigators are looking for some way to bring Mbarushimana to trial.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6637384/
sad that the hard workers of the UN's humanitarian effort have to be demeaned by the actions of the UN's more primeval employee's. i wonder what other mass murders the UN has been involved with. not only is this man a mass murderer, he is rewarded by the UN... great. they ****ed up kosavo, they ****ed up rwanda. i wonder what else they will **** up, how much more our congress will dig up, before the world realizes how stupid this organization is.

 

[el Chi]

gh0st, you're coming across as practically smug and pleased about this. The UN needs a shake-up, no doubt but the actions of the few don't always drag down the majority. Although the media always portrays it like that.
Though I'm not denying that this is disgusting.

 

[seinfeldrules]

gh0st, you're coming across as practically smug and pleased about this. The UN needs a shake-up, no doubt but the actions of the few don't always drag down the majority. Although the media always portrays it like that.
Though I'm not denying that this is disgusting.

This isnt the only example. The UN is falling apart.

 

[gh0st]

gh0st, you're coming across as practically smug and pleased about this. The UN needs a shake-up, no doubt but the actions of the few don't always drag down the majority. Although the media always portrays it like that.
Though I'm not denying that this is disgusting.

ive never heard this sentiment about US soldiers on these message boards. the UN, a humanitarian organizations employees are assisting genocide, and little response is gathered. ohh boy but the US drops napalm on iraqi tanks... now that deserves a response!

 

[el Chi]

ive never heard this sentiment about US soldiers on these message boards. the UN, a humanitarian organizations employees are assisting genocide, and little response is gathered. ohh boy but the US drops napalm on iraqi tanks... now that deserves a response!

A very fair point. Like I said, though - it doesn't stop the horrific nature of the act. In either case.
Besides, you hear about the acts by the US soldiers in Iraq more readily in the media because that simply is the nature of the beast. As a result, people are less aware when things like this happen. It's a shame how fickle the media is.
Nevertheless, I stand by the comment that your tone seemed to be almost revelling at this story.

 

[GiaOmerta]

What a waste....

the billions of dollars the US put into this organization.

This isnt the only example. The UN is falling apart.

Indeed it is.

 

[gh0st]

I stand by the comment that your tone seemed to be almost revelling at this story.

i wasent questioning that

 

[A True Canadian]

i wasent questioning that

Ah gh0st. You're quite a character you know that?

 

[KoreBolteR]

A very fair point. Like I said, though - it doesn't stop the horrific nature of the act. In either case.
Besides, you hear about the acts by the US soldiers in Iraq more readily in the media because that simply is the nature of the beast. As a result, people are less aware when things like this happen. It's a shame how fickle the media is.
Nevertheless, I stand by the comment that your tone seemed to be almost revelling at this story.

omg el chi, youlle be joining al-qaeda next.

 

[gh0st]

Ah gh0st. You're quite a character you know that?

YAY GENOCIDE. happiness for everyone.

 

[bliink]

. ohh boy but the US drops napalm on iraqi tanks...

sif napalm armour...

and the difference is, for 99% of the time, the UN or other organisations are performing properly, and ethically, whereas, the actions of the US as of late have been consistantly unethical and simply annoying to basically the rest of the world.

 

[X|Rolando]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6637384/
"But again, the tribunal considered that this person had not been proven guilty. And, in fact, he hasn't."

Did I miss something?

 

[bliink]

Did I miss something?

You didnt, but everyone else seems to have missed the presumption of innocence. oops.

 

[burner69]

That's one man, which, as pointed out above, was not even proven guilty.

The UN is falling apart because the goddam America, UK etc armies think they have some god-given right to break their rules, belittling them.

Help the UN deal with dictators like Saddam when they need removing. Not when it's convienient for you.
Oh, and don't put them there in the first place - Bush, I hate you, I want you to know that

 

[Spartan]

how much more our congress will dig up, before the world realizes how stupid this organization is.

If we're going to get rid of stupid organizations, we should probably start with your government.

.

 

[Kangy]

This isnt the only example. The UN is falling apart.

So it's time to start making it work.

 

[bliink]

So it's time to start making it work.

It works... but every developed country just ignores it (recent ones have been the US and Israel)

 

[Tr0n]

They're falling apart!?!?!

Oh...Oh well.

 

[Cyphersphere]

ive never heard this sentiment about US soldiers on these message boards. the UN, a humanitarian organizations employees are assisting genocide, and little response is gathered. ohh boy but the US drops napalm on iraqi tanks... now that deserves a response!

Well, At least we haven't slump to this level:

http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html

Don't get me wrong things happen in war. When you are facing an enemy in the crowded streets civilian deaths are not your biggest concern as to staying alive...

 

[seinfeldrules]

It works... but every developed country just ignores it (recent ones have been the US and Israel)

Really? What has it done about Sudan? What did it do to remove Saddam, the genocidal leader? What is it doing about the horrid conditions in NK? It was supposed to prevent these kinds of tyrants from gaining power again. It failed.

 

[CptStern]

Well, At least we haven't slump to this level:

http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html

Don't get me wrong things happen in war. When you are facing an enemy in the crowded streets civilian deaths are not your biggest concern as to staying alive...

ummm who sold them those weapons?

1983 saddam gasses iranian soldiers, world is out raged ..days later this was taken (right click link, save target as)

 

[seinfeldrules]

What stern fails to mention is the US despised Iran at this time because of the hostage incident and a few other run ins.

 

[CptStern]

so that justifies using WMD? :upstare: you're an unrepentant hypocrite arent you?

..maybe saddam should have nuked new york because he despised america /sarcasm

 

[el Chi]

omg el chi, youlle be joining al-qaeda next.

There's no polite way to put this; you're an idiot.

 

[Kangy]

There's no polite way to put this; you're an idiot.

Speak proper man!

It's:

"I regret to inform you, but I, a citizen of Her Majesty's Empire, on which the sun never sets, regretfully inform you that you are in fact an incompetent fool, and a disgrace to the colonies.

Good day sir."

 

[madacian]

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? The man's life is in ruins for something nobody has yet to prove he actually did.

 

[burner69]

Really? What has it done about Sudan? What did it do to remove Saddam, the genocidal leader? What is it doing about the horrid conditions in NK? It was supposed to prevent these kinds of tyrants from gaining power again. It failed.

US put that kind of tyrant there in the first place. Then sold him weapons. Then gave Osama a bit of money for some training of his troops. Then they bitch and moan about it and start a war saying how evil this guy is, and how many super dooper weapons he has. And how he's probably linked to Osama anyway.

FUBAR

 

[Gray Fox]

If you look at of what kind of a different people, and different cultures the UN is comprised of than they have done and are doing incredibly well.
(1)If those UN workers did that then they should be severly punished indeed.
(2)

Really? What has it done about Sudan? What did it do to remove Saddam, the genocidal leader? What is it doing about the horrid conditions in NK? It was supposed to prevent these kinds of tyrants from gaining power again. It failed.

Well the US is the mightiest member of the security council ask them why they never did those things. BTW when it comes to voting on weapons and a lot of other issues the uses votes a lot of time like China, NK, Iran, and other similar countries.
(3) The main reason why the UN is so ineffectieve is because they have a member that it is to powerfull and can easly do things without the need for the UN, namely the US. Now this is by no means an attack on the US unlike the second remark, even if the US was the nicest and most honest nation in the world and the UN bad, then the UN would still be ineffective because of this.

 

[seinfeldrules]

US put that kind of tyrant there in the first place. Then sold him weapons. Then gave Osama a bit of money for some training of his troops. Then they bitch and moan about it and start a war saying how evil this guy is, and how many super dooper weapons he has. And how he's probably linked to Osama anyway.

The US didnt put Saddam in power. The US gave Osama weaponry to defend Afghanistan from the USSR. I wonder whose side we should have been on. It would have looked great to help the USSR overthrow the Afghani gov't and pave their way to the Med. Sea.

 

[gh0st]

The US didnt put Saddam in power. The US gave Osama weaponry to defend Afghanistan from the USSR. I wonder whose side we should have been on. It would have looked great to help the USSR overthrow the Afghani gov't and pave their way to the Med. Sea.

theres no sense of "the big picture" to these people.

 

[burner69]

Oh there is I think.
We just have reservations for the careless nature in which it is done.

EDIT: Oh, and altho Saddam was making his way up the political ladder, the US helped him along.

 

[seinfeldrules]

EDIT: Oh, and altho Saddam was making his way up the political ladder, the US helped him along.

Not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein

In 1976 Saddam was appointed a general in the Iraqi armed forces. He rapidly became the strongman of the government, and was the de facto ruler of Iraq some years before he formally came to power in 1979. He slowly began to consolidate his power over Iraq's government and the Ba'ath party. Relationships with fellow party members were carefully cultivated, and Saddam soon gained a powerful circle of support within the party.

As Iraq's weak and elderly President Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr became increasingly unable to execute the duties of his office, Saddam began to take an increasingly prominent role as the face of the Iraqi government, both internally and externally. He soon became the architect of Iraq's foreign policy and represented the nation in all diplomatic situations. By the late 1970s, Saddam had emerged as the undisputed de facto leader of Iraq.

In 1979 President al-Bakr began to make treaties with Syria, also under Ba'athist leadership, that would lead to unification between the two countries. Syrian President Hafez al-Assad would become deputy leader in a union, and this would drive Saddam to obscurity. Before this could happen, however, the ailing al-Bakr resigned on July 16, 1979. Saddam formally assumed the presidency.

Shortly afterwards, he convened an assembly of Ba'ath party leaders on July 22, 1979. During the assembly, which he ordered videotaped, Saddam claimed to have found spies and conspirators within the Ba'ath Party and read out the names of members who he thought could oppose him. These members were labeled "disloyal" and were removed from the room one by one to face a firing squad. After the list was read, Saddam congratulated those still seated in the room for their past and future loyalty.

 

[burner69]

The whole idea of CIA and Saddam is beyond controversial. It would be impossible for either you or me to say what really happened.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r

There's one idea of events.

 

[Gray Fox]

The US knew saddam was a tyrant dictator, and they helped him get wmd's, now they say that they needed to remove him from power because he is a tyrant dictator, and BUSH senior supplied him with a lot of the help needed for wmd's. Now you rightwing folks feel that the advantages of giving him wmd's outweighd the cost and it was worth it, now I don't know weather it was or not, but it does prove that the US doesn't giva shit if ruler of a country is a tyrant dictator or not, so they lied to us, ( when ever I refer to US I refer to the president and his cabinet of that time.)

 

[Ennui]

You know... who cares? Everything is corrupt anyway.

 

[Gray Fox]

;( I care

 

[Edcrab]

The idea that the UN is only weak because countries ignore it is laughable. Had the Brits used that excuse with Hitler, the war against the Nazis would've been delayed horribly. Oh, wait, that whole "appeasement" thing while we watched him crush human right after human right :flame:

The French blocked progress during the Rwandan genocide, and strongly opposed UN involvement despite 4 Belgian soldiers dying in the ensuing attacks. Great way of showing you support your democratic allies there.

Unlike some I forgive Germany, the US and the UK (purportedly the armies with the closest bases, but I'm not so sure myself) for not getting involved- honestly, what are we meant to do in this day and age? Say "feck you France, we're going to shoot our way through your outskirt bases and stop the horrors in Rwanda"?

Had the UN investigated (as they rightfully did in Iraq- do only the Americans warrant investigations?) we would've had physical proof that the French were ignoring the developments and had the UNs own blessing in sending united forces to intervene. Instead the "independant" UN recon was delayed massively, and the UN Security Council as a whole failed to respond as the situation worsened. Two chances to step in missed- so we only ignore the UN when we really want to, right...

Now just look at Sudan. Appeasement again, anyone? If only we were fascist bastards- we could ignore peace talks, debate and the slow formation of purely verbal agreements, and simply start shooting people. Oh, wait...

 

[Gray Fox]

You also make some good points.

 

[Kangy]

When the French blocked such a thing, I think the UN forces should have simply told France to piss off or get shot.

 

[Edcrab]

Well, although I don't like the rising trend of single sentence replies...

I got to agree. Pretty succinct, that.

Bizzarely, the UN tried to prevent the Iraq war (which is more than understandable) but washed their hands of Afghanistan- as if a practically third-world country should be held responsible for the actions of their government- and, of course, Rwanda. It's just weird, and should be unacceptable to them.

And anyone who even considers labelling the (admittedly contreversial) Iraq conflict that overthrew a monstrous dictator as worse than the undeniable horror of Rwanda... well, you're mad.