Rape Used as Weapon in DR Congo

This is so sad and tragic, it breaks my heart

Yugoslavia had all this in the '90s., and it is in Europe, for God's sake.

I don't know that rape isn't already a violation of international conventions of war. My impression is that all the men, if they are members of a military unit, can already be prosecuted.

The laws as intepreted in the Congo prevent prosecution. Prosecutions of sexual violence in both military and civilian courts in Congo are hindered by outdated laws, the widespread impunity of combatants from justice, a refusal to recognize the serious nature of sexual offenses and insufficient attention to the needs of the victims. 

The crimes of sexual violence under international humanitarian law have been mischaracterized as attacks against the honor of women or an outrage on personal dignity, as opposed to attacks on physical integrity. This approach diminishes the serious nature of the crime and contributes to the widespread misperception of rape as an attack on honor that is an "incidental" or "lesser" crime relative to crimes such as torture or enslavement.

"Interpreted in the Congo"? Doesn't make sense. Geneva is the place where the interpretation  occurs.

The UN or the international court can arrest these people.

Interpol which is the largest international policing group and the U.N. are partnering to step up its efforts to battle crime worldwide, claiming the need for its own special passports, shared global DNA and biometric information databases, cooperation with the UN’s military arm and much more. It is the first step toward creating what Interpol calls a "global policing doctrine."

The following is from the New American that is opposed to furthering the powers of Interpol and the U.N. citing these organizations are governed by the U.S. Constitution.  They do not address the abuses of women and children in war zones.

“As the world’s largest police organization, Interpol needs to remain at the forefront of all activity which enhances member country security and safety,” explained Interpol President Khoo Boon Hui. The organization — officially known as 'THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL POLICE ORGANIZATION - INTERPOL' — is comprised of more than 180 member nations, including a wide array of repressive regimes like China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Sri Lanka (which is currently operating concentration camps), and even Zimbabwe. It was originally founded in 1923 and is based in Lyon, France.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/world/europe/12iht-interpol.html?_r=2

Congo is a member of Interpol that currently has 188 members internationally.

woah. I am against furthering their powers as well. You are telling me that Interpol cannot arrest these people now, under their existing powers? I don't find that believable.

You said, "Congo is a member of Interpol that currently has 188 members internationally."

Someone doesn't want to to do their job and someone else is using this to indict those of us who are suspect about giving away our sovereignty.

Considering the rise in terrorism, perhaps an international policing agency could at least contribute to the investigation and intelligence gathering of terrorists.  If Interpol is in partership with the U.N., there would be a check and balance system that could protect compromising sovereighty of participating nations and countries. 

Interpol is a policing agency without conventional police powers.  The functional abilities are its strength.  For example, it has its own communications network and operates systems for gathering, storing and exchanging information on criminal intelligence globally.  They make this information available to member nations and makes legal action possible against criminals that might otherwise be immune. They are also uniquely capable of intiating action some forms of crime where no nation agency is able to do so.  It can set a pattern to follow as in the cases of civil aircraft hijacking and theft or the confiscation of assets that are generated by major criminal enterprises.

So, instead of interventions that we control and we pay for and we man as well, we let "other people" make us spend our money and control how we do it and demand our manpower as well?

I don't think so.

Interpol already has all it needs to do its job and we cooperate with them very well, as far as I know.

George Bush wanted to do all this. Listen in on phone calls in international airspace. The libs opposed it. Now it turns out that the principle was fine, but not the person in charge. No?

So, instead of interventions that we control and we pay for and we man as well, we let "other people" make us spend our money and control how we do it and demand our manpower as well?

The U.S. does not operate in a vacuum, and we cooperate with international entities globally already. 

I would not favor "individual" control of anything that effects our country or any other country, but if a cooperative effort can bring about the adherence to the Geneva Convention and its subsequent articles then working toward this end is in the best interests of the international community.

My point is that we have to not jump in and cede autonomy to legal entities that are not accountable to the American people. 

Anything or anybody that wants our support but doesn't want to be accountable to us, the American people, is suspect to me.

Try living in another country and you will get just how much that country's problems are the result of their own attitudes and that they don't want to change. So be wary.

Out of all that, I don't see any need for more co-operation. I see a need for Interpol to do its job.

Same thing here. Do we need new gun laws? How about enforcing the old ones first?

On this topic, not gun control

Because of the large number of member states, Interpol is accountable to its membership in a cooperative spirit; therefore, it behooves them to not overstep the powers invested to them by the members, lest they lose credibility and support.   I see the partnering of the U.N. and Interpol as a positive step toward the unification of Interpol's shared information data and the peace keeping and intervention powers of the U.N..   

What is good about the UN? Corrupt, corrupt, the UN is.
Why trust them?