...is to end war.
And again, unfortunately, that's not likely to happen anytime soon.

chemical weapons. If the "cost" is higher, it will be less likely.

for IMO.

across the planet breaking things and supporting a apartheid gov't and then, maybe just then we will have a smidgeon of credibility that some might pay attention to.

Doing so might be a good start.

However, I think that is something that would require 67 votes in the Senate - so it won't happen.

Yes, I am that sick of them.

and computers, the guys at the bottom could control their peckers? Eh, John?

Not everything is about the NSA.

How NSA Spies Abused Their Powers to Snoop on Girlfriends

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/09/27/loveint_how_nsa_spies_snooped_on_girlfriends_lovers_and_first_dates.html

not sure what that has to do with the OP .

First of all, the audit DID catch some spies breaking the rules. (Just as back in the old Bell System days, some operators were caught listening to calls - common denominator - it was against the rules and grounds for firing.

That you compare this to the outrage in some countries where hundreds of women were raped by troops JUST to terrorize that town and nearby towns. There is NO way this is equivalent.

However:
1) It was NEVER something the analysts were allowed to do - they broke the rules - and the reason we know is they were caught. However, the incidences were very few. I assume that they added more safeguards after it was discovered.

2) There were ZERO accounts that an analyst followed his ex and then attacked her. If there were a case where this happened, it would have been a HUGE topic of conversation here.

Contrast that to a problem that has destroyed thousands of lives in many areas of the world. Are you really suggesting that an international effort to make this at least more infrequent is not important.

Does EVERY thread have to be on the many evils of the NSA or the greatness of Snowden? Can we have any threads that do not mention either?

As far we know, those are mostly other US troops who are the victims. Who knows how bad it is for the locals. Definitely no justice there.

If Kerry wants justice for women in war, he should demand the US join the ICC, as another poster mentioned.

Do you think there are 67 votes in the Senate to join the ICC? Do you think there would be 67 votes if Kerry demands it? This is fact, would not have much - if any - effect on the problem.

The US military and the Congress have worked on the issue of sexual violence in the US military. That is not something that is under the responsibility of the State Department. As to locals, there likely are cases - and they need to be prosecuted (also not under the control of the State Department).

However, there are NOT accounts of hundreds of women being systematically raped by the US.

That doesn't stop Kerry from talking about it.

I support Kerry's words here, but those must be followed by action. The ICC lacks power because of the US's abstention.

Talk about it. Campaign on it. Then vote on it.

Look at the list that Kerry proposed - in the link in the OP. These are all things that the State Department has the power to do. THAT is action. The list does include many things that could make a difference on this issue.

Consider what it would mean if President Obama - or Kerry representing him, actually made this an issue and pushed for a vote on that. Would you want that vote before November -- when the Senate is at stake? There is a huge population of people who are very America centric. This would be cast as giving an international body control over America. I would be willing to bet that many Democrats - especially some up for re-election would vote "no". What would the international message be if this got less than 50 votes - a rather likely possibility.

I doubt the Democratic nominee - no matter who she or he is - once this issue out there in 2016. That dynamic that it is always before some election will likely keep this off the Senate floor until the opinion in the population changes. Changing opinion is something that people outside government - including ex-Presidents - can do. President Obama will leave office a relatively young man. (Kerry when he leaves as Secretary will not be young, but he is clearly very energetic and his roots are as an activist. It will be interesting to see what he will do. Note that both Al Gore and Jimmy Carter were from the conservative end of the Democratic spectrum -- yet look at where they have been advocates.

US efforts to push for one lack legitimacy for that reason. And no, the state department would not have power to establish one without treaties with participating nations.

That's why it is extremely relevant to point out American exceptionalism. Your efforts to dismiss it are lame and uninspired.

War criminals already have a hard time getting Visas. Unless they are visiting and ally.

I am simply pointing out that when you can do real things, even if they are not perfect or complete, you might not be the best person to INSTEAD lead an effort that is ultimately not going to happen at this time.

If Kerry were an activist, as he was in the 1970s, it would be great if he used his voice to argue for this. Even if Kerry were still Senator (for life) from MA and Chair of the SFRC, he could lead on this - likely without the support of the President or Senate leadership. As Secretary of State, he both has more power and resources, but especially on something that would be political dynamite, he would need Obama's ok. Not to mention, as a 5 term Senator, I assume he would have a very good idea of the likelihood of succeeding. How would you, if you were Kerry, make the case to Obama for leading this effort? Then as Obama, would you put the limited capital he still has behind this - before either the 2014 or 2016 election? Do you believe that if Kerry and Obama both made their best cases for why we should do this that they could get 67 votes? How many votes would you predict? If it fails badly, does the US look better or worse than before they made it an issue? If you were a 2016 Democratic candidate - especially Warren or Sanders - who I hope would agree with it, do you think the issue would have helped you?

You might want to consider that in 2005, when the Democrats could not have passed anything, Senator Kennedy wrote and introduced a bill that was essentially single payer health insurance. In late 2008, Kennedy spent the summer in DC working with staffers from HELP on his committee's precursor bill to ACA. In 2009, Bernie Sanders had a single payer bill and got no co-sponsors. Do you think Kennedy became less progressive or the issue meant less to him - as he worked long hours on it as his health declined? No - the difference was that in 2005, he could function more as an activist saying exactly what he thought should be done. In 2008, with the coming Obama administration, he knew that it was a rare opportunity to pass something that while not perfect, is providing insurance to many who never had it and it seems to be bending the cost curve to some degree.

This is an issue that has not even had many activists working it yet. I would expect that before any Secretary of State would push the issue. It is also so big in its possible political impacts, that it almost has to be a goal of a President - and maybe one willing to sacrifice any other goal that requires political capital. Kerry is not going to be a rogue Secretary of State and give up any chance to do good on anything. Not to mention, no President would keep one!

Thanks in advance.

I know exactly where I am -- you are the one pushing for Kerry to advocate for something that clearly can not pass rather than propose things he has the power to implement.

The US needs credibility on the issue first. Then other nations might agree to a mobile court.

This is just hot wind until then. Don't believe me? Let's return to this topic in 5 years, when no court has been established and there have been many more unpunished rapes by US military and private military contractors.

Regards.

Note that the other provisions are things the US can do - with or without anyone.

As to mobile courts, the question is whether the organization will accept the idea. What he did was to give the idea visibility.

Is your opinion that the US should do nothing on this -- and not use Kerry's high international profile -- until the ICC passes the Senate? Or do you have a secret list of Republicans who would vote Yes.

Nobody likes or listens to hypocrites.

Given that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have the US Senate approve joining the ICC, what would you want the President and/or the Secretary of State to do?

They are way too soft on them.

For example, Kerry could have done so while making this announcement.

"Sorry we ourselves are so rapey. We have Republicans"

Nice try. The issue that Republicans have is over joining the ICC.

I seriously don't understand why you would propose that the country's top diplomat say such an idiotic, undiplomatic thing.

With that - I will ignore any further inanity that you post here.

Well played.

which showed you had no logical, reasonable response. You also - in doing that - were willing to smear the US itself. I disagree with the US not being in the ICC, but to say it because we are "too 'rapey' " is asinine. You have in various places conflated the systemic, ordered use of rape of an entire population of women with the too common soldier taking advantage of someone with no power. No one is saying the latter is not a problem - it is a crime, immoral and needs to be punished, but for times where rape is used as a weapon of war or terror, what Hague and Kerry and others here are saying is that not just the rapists, but their superiors who ordered it should be punished.

Oddly enough, I suspect that if the same speech in the same conference would have been made by someone you respect, you would have no problem with it and likely would ask why the Obama administration was not there.

Do you really want to be the mirror image of the far right when they will not let facts stand in the way of a good smear of Democrats?

Nothing but empty promises, just like John Kerry.

PS - When Kerry gets it right, I have always given him credit on this board.

I did not see you give credit for that - just attacks essentially for joining the conference at all - calling it hypocritical because he was not campaigning to get the US in the ICC.

As to ignoring you, I should have done so because your posts have degenerated to charges that have no basis in truth and now to personal attacks.

Again, work backwards. You are lost.

serious .

Thzts why he got so much back clash on apartheid commentd. Wouldnt had he apology maybe the RW pro Aipac nuts would have mounted the non story for days.

Goid job John. This is the first time i see this issue fought on a so powerfull level. Usally in France only human rights NGOs talk about it with nothing made. France has pacticez this tool of war in Algeria not so long ago.

this rabbit hole is really making me ill

He is a million miles away from those stereotypes.

how is he on landmines?

being sold by the US.

nor vice versa. I guess Im just broad brushing the people in power and positions of influence for the last 25 years.
We got here all on our lonesome, Im sure.
and they all have perfectly good explanations/excuses.

And exposed famously war crimes in Vietnam

Counterpunch is a terrible source -- here they might as well be Free Republic. By the way, it is incredible how he twists so much of Tour of Duty to say things it does not say.

but that doesnt mean they wont publish interesting, informed perspectives.
And yes, I understand what you mean about "here"

because he thought he needed to vote yes to be a viable presidential candidate. And he's not the only one.

want to introduce lethal force in Iraq.

that CO2 emissions are a much greater threat than war. This is the real challenge, not ending rape in war, but in stopping industrialized nations from spewing their poison into the air.

Id say all those causes are important. Without hierarchy.

I would assume that while he may have led on this effort, a large amount of work was done by his team. I assume they will be the ones following up.

Kerry has worked on climate change for decades and he has said he wants to lead on climate change.

Actress Angelina Jolie has been made an honorary dame for services to UK foreign policy and campaigning to end sexual violence in war zones.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27830525

Her commitment on this is incredible.

Are you someone who argues that any cure for a disease is not a cure for cancer?

Hagel is the Secretary of Defense and he has addressed that. Kerry is Secretary of State - this is an issue that he and his staff have obviously worked on. Should everything Hillary Clinton worked on with regards to women have been dropped too? That focus was and is important.