Obama waives sanctions on countries that use child soldiers

Obama waives sanctions on countries that use child soldiers

U.S. President Barack Obama issued a new executive order last week to fight human trafficking, touting his administration's handling of the issue.

"When a little boy is kidnapped, turned into a child soldier, forced to kill or be killed -- that's slavery," Obama said in a speech at the Clinton Global Initiative. "It is barbaric, and it is evil, and it has no place in a civilized world. Now, as a nation, we've long rejected such cruelty." But for the thi

thecable.foreignpolicy.com...

For the thrid year in a row sanctions have been waived to punish those who use child soldiers.

Presidential memorandum waiving sanctions aigainst Libya,Sudan,Yemen., and Congo.

"After such a strong statement against the exploitation of children, it seems bizarre that Obama would give a pass to countries using children in their armed forces and using U.S. tax money to do that," said Jesse Eaves, the senior policy advisor for child protection at World Vision.

Bizarre is an understatement.

This guy is always trying to have it both ways.

Read the rest of the article.

reply to post by neo96


Where is the Presidential Memorandum and the link to it??

Spin? CHECK

Actual memo? Excerpt from memo? Link to memo? ITS THE SUBJECT OF THE OP...At least provide something beyond the spin.

reply to post by Indigo5


Didn't bother clicking it did you?

Wow follow the link.

looking for brownie points much?!?!?!?!

reply to post by Indigo5

Where is the Presidential Memorandum and the link to it??

Spin? CHECK

Actual memo? Excerpt from memo? Link to memo? ITS THE SUBJECT OF THE OP...At least provide something beyond the spin.

You asked for it so here it is!!!!

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE

SUBJECT: Determination with Respect to the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008

Pursuant to section 404 of the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008 (CSPA) (title IV, Public Law 110-457), I hereby determine that it is in the national interest of the United States to waive the application of the prohibition in section 404(a) of the CSPA with respect to Libya, South Sudan, and Yemen; and further determine that it is in the national interest of the United States to waive in part the application of the prohibition in section 404(a) of the CSPA with respect to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to allow for continued provision of International Military Education and Training funds and nonlethal Excess Defense Articles, and the issuance of licenses for direct commercial sales of U.S. origin defense articles; and I hereby waive such provisions accordingly.

You are authorized and directed to submit this determination to the Congress, along with the accompanying Memorandum of Justification, and to publish the determination in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA

Right from the White House website!!!

Were you so blind to partisanship to not look up the link provided?

reply to post by seeker1963

to allow for continued provision of International Military Education and Training funds and nonlethal Excess Defense Articles, and the issuance of licenses for direct commercial sales of U.S. origin defense articles

What are defence articles? Excess equipment of the US Military:

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) is responsible for administering the Department of Defense’s (DoD) Excess Defense Articles (EDA) program. Excess defense articles are DoD and U.S. Coast Guard-owned articles no longer needed and declared excess by the U.S. Armed Forces. This excess equipment may be offered at reduced or no cost to eligible foreign recipients on an “as is, where is” basis in support of U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives.

beta-www.bis.doc.gov...

The military needs to dump its old crap, so waive sanctions to countries with child soldiers...





"Non-lethal" of course. As if that makes it better.

reply to post by seeker1963


If you are going to make an OP about it...You would have thought the OP Author would have actually included an excerpt or link to the OP TOPIC.

Since you...a poster have now supplied the Excecutive Memo...Let me provide the bill...404(a) is what has been waived.

www.state.gov/documents/organization/135981.pdf

Libya - New Addition to waiver status
South Sudan
Yemen
Democratic Republic of the Congo (partially Waived)

Burma, Sudan and Somalia, Chad etc. still banned

This bill bans military training and assistance...In short...we have Special-Ops in these countries hunting Al-Qaida and we are training their military to hunt Al-Qaida in thier borders.

Our options are to cease to help these countries combat Al-Qaida and leave them to thier own desperate means or work with thier governments directly to both hunt AL-Qaeda and legitimitize thier military...no more child soldiers.

everyone is free to form thier own opinions...but I always like to start with the facts.

reply to post by Indigo5

Since you...a poster have now supplied the Excecutive Memo...Let me provide the bill...404(a) is what has been waived.

www.state.gov/documents/organization/135981.pdf

Nice try!!!!

As we all know with executive orders..................THEY RULE!!!!!! Are you so blinded by propoganda to stick up for this POTUS even when you are proven wrong????

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Since you...a poster have now supplied the Excecutive Memo...Let me provide the bill...404(a) is what has been waived.

www.state.gov/documents/organization/135981.pdf

Nice try!!!!

As we all know with executive orders..................THEY RULE!!!!!! Are you so blinded by propoganda to stick up for this POTUS even when you are proven wrong????

What?? Ease up on the troll bit...I supplied info for the OP...WTF are you talking about with "Nice try" "Blinded by propaganda" yada yada...maybe try not to act like your avatar?

reply to post by Indigo5

What?? Ease up on the troll bit...I supplied info for the OP...WTF are you talking about with "Nice try" "Blinded by propaganda" yada yada...maybe try not to act like your avatar?

So by me pointing out the fact that you didn't even read the OP's source makes me a troll????


Then you stoop so low to make a comment about my avatar without even knowing why I chose it, only proves my point!!!!!!

You were WRONG, and now you stoop to the level of acting like a child insulting me???? Obama would be soooo proud of you!!!!!

Keep up the good work, you just might talk a few people out of voting for him!

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.
...
“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.”

FOX News (from 2010)

If you want to change something like this, you have to cooperate with them to a certain extent to keep the lines of communications open... You may not approve, but if we sanctioned them, we'd have less access, less power and less ability to do what we want there.

reply to post by neo96


No Surprise!! Obama has a history of being soft on crimes and the criminals who commit them

But no one wants to talk about his past record when in fact his past connects directly with his actions as President. This is a glaring case in point. But its ok to talk about Bain Capital until the cows come home...

Obama ‘shamefully soft on crime and drugs

The first section — and by far the densest — is called “Shamefully Soft on Crime and Drugs,” and provides a window into Obama’s character liabilities, brought into focus by his willingness to vote either against or “present” on an array of anti-crime legislation. It includes accounts of his failing to support laws meant to protect battered women, ensure the privacy of rape victims and prevent the murder of witnesses.

Read more: dailycaller.com...

reply to post by seeker1963


No...I was not "Wrong" The OP linked to a blog...which then had a link to the Memo.

If you are going to an OP on a Memo...CITE THE MEMO IN THE OP...INCLUDE AN EXCERPT...INCLUDE A DIRECT LINK.

This is of the ilk where OPs are created about something a politician said, but they actually fail to provide the qoute...only some link to a crazy spin piece about the quote.

OP 101...If you are going to Discuss a memo...provide a direct link or excerpt? How difficult is that...for an objective, rational mind? Begin with the actual SOURCE of discussion?

I understand that "opinion" of the Memo trumps the actual Memo in the partisan mind, but we are supposed to DENY IGNORANCE.

Providing a Link to an blog article...which somewhere contains a link to the Memo in discussion is NOT a launching point for discussion...it is a launching point for partisan BS.

reply to post by Indigo5


Here are the facts, (if you actually read the bill):

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

(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.

(d) REINSTATEMENT OF ASSISTANCE.—The President may provide to a country assistance otherwise prohibited under subsection (a) upon certifying to the appropriate congressional committees that the government of such country—
(1) has implemented measures that include an action plan and actual steps to come into compliance with the standards outlined in section 404(b); and
(2) has implemented policies and mechanisms to prohibit and prevent future government or government- supported use of child soldiers and to ensure that no children are recruited, conscripted, or otherwise compelled to serve as child soldiers.

(2) LIMITATION.—The exception under paragraph (1) may remain in effect for a country for more than 5 years.

Translation:

Child soldiers are okay as long as they serve the interest of the United States, and as long as governments that use them have an "action plan" on how they may get rid of them one day...

Hypocrisy is the state of promoting or administering virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually have or is also guilty of violating.[1] Hypocrisy often involves the deception of others and thus can be considered a kind of lie.[1]

en.wikipedia.org...

This may very well be needed to stabilize the region so it serves US interests. However, no one should be able to use any type of moral argument for it. This is reality, I understand why it is. But lets not play under the assumption that the only blood on peoples hands are opposing forces.

reply to post by Indigo5

No...I was not "Wrong" The OP linked to a blog...which then had a link to the Memo.

If you are going to an OP on a Memo...CITE THE MEMO IN THE OP...INCLUDE AN EXCERPT...INCLUDE A DIRECT LINK.

Are you internet illiterate or are you just struggling to make everyone think you are right?

Yes, Neo linked to an article, but if you would have been perceptive enough to click on the BLUE HIGHLIGHTED WORDS in the article that NEO showed as a source that said, "Presidential Memorandum" perhaps you would not be looking as ignorant as you do now using semantics to try to save your reputation?????

From 2010

the law, signed by President George W. Bush but effective only as of this year, would have penalized countries providing crucial cooperation with the United States, including in the fight against Al Qaeda militants. In some cases, they said, it was easier to press countries to stop using young soldiers if the United States remained closely engaged with them.

And now, they said, the four countries are effectively being given a year to change their ways.

“We put these four countries on notice by naming them as having child soldiers, and thereby making them automatically subject to sanctions, absent the exercise of a presidential waiver,” said Tommy Vietor, a White House spokesman. “Our intention is to work with them over the next year to try to solve this problem — or at least make significant progress on it — and reassess our posture towards them next year, depending on the progress they have made.”

www.nytimes.com...

The same administration that is offering them a Waiver...is the same administration that before offering them waiver designated them as a banned entity...So they could review the status on a yearly basis.

BTW - It was President Obama who signed this law into effect.

Now...It seems rational to debate whether or not it is in the USAs interest to be able to deploy special ops in these regions...or to train the local military to fight Al-Qaida which are taking up residence in these regions...or to engage these governments and military's through interaction in order to transistion them to a more legitimate military...all good areas of debate IMO.

But who here honestly believes that President Obama is an enthusiastic fan of Child soldiers? Cuz that seems a mentally handicapped place to start....but not unusual in the dishonest and partisan climate as of late.

reply to post by boncho


I agree with everything you posted. That is actually the informed and balanced opinion I usually hope for, but rarely see on these types of OPs. Star...thanks for that.

reply to post by seeker1963


Your post seems a whole lot of troll and not much else.....In case you are confused on where I stand....

YES...I expect someone making AN OP ABOUT A MEMO TO INCLUDE THE MEMO OR A LINK TO IT...IN THE OP. Rather than partisan crap blog articles.

You seem to think that is to demanding? Actually including the subject material in the OP?

We are free to disagree there...could honestly care less.

reply to post by Indigo5

The same administration that is offering them a Waiver...is the same administration that before offering them waiver designated them as a banned entity...So they could review the status on a yearly basis.

BTW - It was President Obama who signed this law into effect.

Now...It seems rational to debate whether or not it is in the USAs interest to be able to deploy special ops in these regions...or to train the local military to fight Al-Qaida which are taking up residence in these regions...or to engage these governments and military's through interaction in order to transistion them to a more legitimate military...all good areas of debate IMO.

But who here honestly believes that President Obama is an enthusiastic fan of Child soldiers? Cuz that seems a mentally handicapped place to start....but not unusual in the dishonest and partisan climate as of late.

Your first sentence seems brings me to mind of two words!!! FLIP FLOPPER!!!!!!!!!

WTF are you trying to pull? A rabbit out of your hat????

Trust me, I know why you came out against NEO as you did and that is because NEO supports the right and you are a die hard supporter of the left!!!!! DAMN! Can you not see how ridiculous this crap is getting and how as long as this kind of garbage is considered the political nor in this country that WE THE PEOPLE WILL LOSE????

If you would look at my past posts, you would realize that I don't buy into either party and firmly believe that unless we unite as citizens of the United States of America that this left/right arguement will be the death of all of us poor souls who support the system that is killing us in the first place!!! As NEO will tell you, I have called him out for a few things in the past and by God I will call any BS'er out for doing nothing more than spewing propogands and supporting THIER TEAM!!!!!

That's the hold that the PTB have over all of us! I don't care if you lean left! Just don't be so damn obvious in supporting your team when you damn well know they made a mistake!! I am done with you! Take it for what it is.

One thing I'm curious about. It's clear that Obama has something that he thinks is more important in this situation than child protections and rights. The OP's article includes this:

The Obama administration doesn't want to upset its relationships with countries that it needs for security cooperation, but the blanket use of waivers is allowing the administration to avoid the law's intent, which was to use force the U.S. government to put a greater priority on human rights and child protection when doling out military aid, he said.

It appears that he's ignoring a law, and endangering children, in order to have the offending countries like us? I really don't understand.