Thanks for sh*tting in our river US and UN.

[2pac Shakur]

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti (AP) — A human rights group said Tuesday it has filed claims with the United Nations seeking damages on behalf of more than 5,000 Haitian cholera victims and their families.

The claims filed by the Boston-based Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti argue that the U.N. and its peacekeeping force are liable for hundreds of millions of dollars for failing to adequately screen peacekeeping soldiers.

They cite a range of studies that indicate the infected soldiers caused the outbreak when untreated waste from a U.N. base was dumped into a tributary of Haiti's most important river.

"The sickness, death and ongoing harm from cholera suffered by Haiti's citizens are a product of the U.N.'s multiple failures," the complaint reads. "These failures constitute negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, and deliberate indifference for the lives of Haitians."

http://news.yahoo.com/haiti-group-demands-un-pay-cholera-outbreak-140127284.html

A perfect summary of what we do when we go :qunq: help :qunq: foreign countries. Take what we can, sh*t on them, and leave ASAP. :usa:

[FormLetter]

What did we take in this case?

[ShakeNBakes]

their weed?

[NoName]

http://news.yahoo.com/haiti-group-demands-un-pay-cholera-outbreak-140127284.html

A perfect summary of what we do when we go :qunq: help :qunq: foreign countries. Take what we can, sh*t on them, and leave ASAP. :usa:By "we" you mean the UN?

[ElDucky]

Oh no, they shit in a river that was filled with shit.

[homeys66]

Are all "human rights" groups nothing but "the US is the devil" groups? I'm guessing this is Bush's fault somehow.

[JasonScandopolous]

How were there hundreds of millions of dollars of damage from 5000 non-fatal, days-long infections of people who make $1200 a year? Sounds like a bunch of crap.

[2pac Shakur]

How were there hundreds of millions of dollars of damage from 5000 non-fatal, days-long infections of people who make $1200 a year? Sounds like a bunch of crap.

Yup. It was crap.

[2pac Shakur]

What did we take in this case?

At a minimum - they took millions of dollars from US taxpayers.

[2pac Shakur]

By "we" you mean the UN?

Yea - since they are so independent of us.

[NoName]

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/02/how-the-un-caused-haitis-cholera-crisis-and-wont-be-held-responsible/273526/
Apparently it is pretty widely accepted now that it was, indeed, the UN's fault, but the UN has invoked its immunity under the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. This may be the right call legally (though the article explains why that's a gray area), and perhaps morally as well (the rich countries that fund the UN also give money to Haiti and it really doesn't matter how it's labeled). It's a very unpleasant episode, in any case.
If a multinational corporation behaved the way the U.N. did in Haiti (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/01/10/in_the_time_of_cholera), it would be sued for stratospheric amounts of money. And that's just for starters: Were Unilever or Coca-Cola responsible for a cholera outbreak that killed 8,000 people and infected 640,000 more (http://globalhealth.kff.org/Daily-Reports/2013/January/10/GH-011013-Cholera-In-Haiti.aspx), and for subsequently covering up its employees' failure to adhere to basic sanitation standards, it is likely their executives would have difficulty visiting countries claiming universal legal jurisdiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction). They would have to contend with Interpol red notices (http://www.interpol.int/INTERPOL-expertise/Notices), along with the occasional cream pie attack. And the companies themselves would go into damage control mode, akin to BP's post-oil-spill public relations blitz, or Wal-Mart's pivot toward promoting American-made products. They'd acknowledge the need to convince skeptical consumers that their corporate behavior had changed.


The U.N. and its leadership won't have to worry about any of this. But maybe it should.

As award-winning journalist Jonathan Katz established in a bombshell chapter (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/01/10/in_the_time_of_cholera) of his recent book, The Big Truck That Went By (http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Truck-That-Went/dp/023034187X), a base for Nepalese U.N. peacekeepers next to the Artibonite River was the origin of the cholera epidemic that swept through Haiti in October of 2010. There had been no reported cases of cholera in Haiti for a century; now, the disease is endemic, and it is projected to kill as many as 1,000 people a year until it is eradicated, according to Brian Concannon, director of the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti (http://ijdh.org/) and a lawyer representing Haitian claimants against the U.N. Former president Bill Clinton, the U.N.'s special envoy for Haiti, has admitted that U.N. peacekeepers (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/bill-clinton-admits-united-nations-source-haiti-cholera/story?id=15885580) were responsible for the outbreak. But Katz, the AP's Haiti correspondent in the years after the country's devastating 2010 earthquake, was at the receiving end of a bungled U.N. cover-up of the epidemic's cause. The World Body actively discouraged and even impeded journalists and public health investigators attempting to trace the causes of the pestilence. The U.N. never admitted responsibility, even as a U.N. commissioned-report left little room for doubt (the entire saga is recounted in Katz's chapter, which should be read in full (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/01/10/in_the_time_of_cholera)).

[Loner]

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/02/how-the-un-caused-haitis-cholera-crisis-and-wont-be-held-responsible/273526/
Apparently it is pretty widely accepted now that it was, indeed, the UN's fault, but the UN has invoked its immunity under the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. This may be the right call legally (though the article explains why that's a gray area), and perhaps morally as well (the rich countries that fund the UN also give money to Haiti and it really doesn't matter how it's labeled). It's a very unpleasant episode, in any case.

So if a Medicaid patient was maimed by a doctor's negligence, they shouldn't be able to claim damages? Some "morality."

[Standtall]

So if a Medicaid patient was maimed by a doctor's negligence, they shouldn't be able to claim damages? Some "morality."

Medcaid is not charity. The recipient paid into it.

[Scherzo]

So if a Medicaid patient was maimed by a doctor's negligence, they shouldn't be able to claim damages? Some "morality."

I think it would be a bit ungrateful if a doctor saved someone's life, was not compensated for their effort, and then sued by the patient because of a complication from the surgery. Yes.

[Standtall]

You confusing Medicaid with Medicare, bro?

That is a very real possibility.

[snikelfritz]

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/02/how-the-un-caused-haitis-cholera-crisis-and-wont-be-held-responsible/273526/
Apparently it is pretty widely accepted now that it was, indeed, the UN's fault, but the UN has invoked its immunity under the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. This may be the right call legally (though the article explains why that's a gray area), and perhaps morally as well (the rich countries that fund the UN also give money to Haiti and it really doesn't matter how it's labeled). It's a very unpleasant episode, in any case.

But, weren't like billions of dollars given to re-build? Lack of funds isn't the problem in Haiti, it's lack of a government able to do anything with the funds.