US Withdraws From Human Rights Council

Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
Carole Vann/Juan Gasparini/Human Rights Tribune - The news that the US has completely withdrawn from the Human Rights Council spread like wildfire Friday afternoon (June 6) through the corridors of the Palais des Nations in Geneva. There was general consternation amongst diplomats and NGOS. Reached by phone, the American mission in Geneva neither confirmed nor denied the report. Although unofficial, the news comes at a time of long opposition by the Bush administration to the reforms which created the Human Rights Council in June 2006. Washington announced from the beginning that the US would not be an active member but its observer status would mean that it could intervene during the sessions. To date even this has rarely happened.

“We don’t understand the reasons nor the timing of the decision”, said Sebastien Gillioz of Human Rights Watch. “There have even been some positive signs during this Council. For example Belarus was not re-elected as a member in 2007 nor Sri Lanka this year”.

The stupefaction was made greater by the fact the US actively took part in the universal Periodic Review (UPR) process where 32 countries were scrutinized by their peers in April and May. In particular a series of recommendations were made regarding Romania, Japan, Guatemala, Peru, Tunisia, Ukraine, Indonesia and others.

Diplomats are equally concerned. If the current president of the Council, Doru Costea, declined to comment, his predecessor, Luis Alfonso De Alba said that he didnt see any reason to justify such a decision. Several observers mentioned Washington’s growing discontentment with the influence of the Islamic and African countries in the Council.

“It is an aberration”, said Peter Splinter of Amnesty International. “It seems that the government has lost its mind. How could it believe it is going to improve human rights by running away? It is like those who say, ‘I don’t like the way this town is governed so I’m not going to vote’”.

For Human Rights Watch (HRW), the US has shown very little commitment to human rights in general. The working group against arbitrary detention gave up going to Guantanamo last month because Washington would not allow its members to have face to face meetings with detainees. For its part, the Rapporteur against racism, Doudou Diene, has fought for years to be able to pay a visit and only recently got permission.

But Eric Sottas, director of the International Organisation against Torture sees it as a a political gesture. “The US has always clearly shown its opposition to the Council. This is a slightly more public way of putting pressure on it in order to raise the stakes. What is more the Bush dynasty is coming to the end of its mandate,” he said. “It reminds me of the time when the Nixon administration, which backed Pinochet in Chile, chastized the UN for criticising the Chilean dictator. But when Carter was elected in 1977, the American government took the floor at the Human Rights Commission to ask forgiveness. After a presidency like that of Bush, you can expect some important changes in US policy on human right.”

HRW is still worried about the withdrawal. “The message is worrying”, says Sebastien Gillioz. “ Ever since September 11, 2001, the US has constantly interpreted international standards in an “ a la carte” manner that has eroded human rights. Its behaviour has served as an example to a stream of states, including Pakistan, Egypt and other, who are not embarrassed to review human rights standards on homosexuality, abortion, capital punishment. It is a step backwards.”
Source: http://www.humanrights-geneva.info/US-quits-Human-Rights-Council,3184

Why? Because our current low point isn't low enough.
 
ANBU
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,192
Best answers
0
It's indeed a step backwards! :\
 
ANBU
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,192
Best answers
0
Probably not be finger pointed by the UN about the wars(and their consequences) they've created! Don't know!
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,309
Best answers
0
This is obviously the best choice our president has ever made.

Seriously... why?
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
Maybe this:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/06/06/usint19041.htm

I don't think anyone one has been given a reason as of yet.

Anyway, the US was never part of the council per se, but it still doesn't make sense that we'd randomly leave. The US has in the past condemned the council for condemning Israel's human rights record (o.0) so I don't think we've ever actually been on good terms. Still, what the ****.
 
Last edited:
ANBU
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,192
Best answers
0
War is the main cause of this,as i said!
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,309
Best answers
0
Way to be an example, america.

But, what does this mean is going to happen to human rights in the US? I see we're not strong believers, so can I capture and work a small child to death, while he drinks his own blood, sweat, and tears?

Sweet.

edit: Maybe bush got fed up with everyone raggin on him so before he's leaving office he's going to go out with a bang. A bad bang, might I add.
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
Way to be an example, america.

But, what does this mean is going to happen to human rights in the US? I see we're not strong believers, so can I capture and work a small child to death, while he drinks his own blood, sweat, and tears?

Sweet.

edit: Maybe bush got fed up with everyone raggin on him so before he's leaving office he's going to go out with a bang. A bad bang, might I add.
Eh...our laws aren't in place because the UN asked us to create them.
 
New Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
64
Best answers
0
Way to be an example, america.

But, what does this mean is going to happen to human rights in the US? I see we're not strong believers, so can I capture and work a small child to death, while he drinks his own blood, sweat, and tears?

Sweet.

edit: Maybe bush got fed up with everyone raggin on him so before he's leaving office he's going to go out with a bang. A bad bang, might I add.
actually we have child labor laws that were established around the 1920's ie kids working in coal mines, factory's etc.. so you can't pick up some kid and make him work in your imaginary factory
 
New Member
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
1,478
Best answers
0
Probably not be finger pointed by the UN about the wars(and their consequences) they've created! Don't know!
Had you actually bothered to look into the issue, no, our conflicts in the Middle East had no impact on this.

This is obviously the best choice our president has ever made.

Seriously... why?
Not just our executive branch, our legislative branch has had issues with the council, as well as a handful of other countries.

Maybe this:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/06/06/usint19041.htm

I don't think anyone one has been given a reason as of yet.

Anyway, the US was never part of the council per se, but it still doesn't make sense that we'd randomly leave. The US has in the past condemned the council for condemning Israel's human rights record (o.0) so I don't think we've ever actually been on good terms. Still, what the ****.
Apparently we provided funding, but chose not to take a seat. Why? Because it's essentially a front for the Middle Eastern countries to air grievances against Israel defending themselves from Palestinian and Libyan terrorists, while ignoring serious violations in other countries.

bush is a retard
I'm glad you think so. I tend to agree, however your post has no value and is flamebait for people who disagree. No more of this will be tolerated.

Way to be an example, america.

But, what does this mean is going to happen to human rights in the US? I see we're not strong believers, so can I capture and work a small child to death, while he drinks his own blood, sweat, and tears?

Sweet.

edit: Maybe bush got fed up with everyone raggin on him so before he's leaving office he's going to go out with a bang. A bad bang, might I add.
This is just silly. If you want a more objective look at actual human rights, which I doubt anyone here has paid a great deal of attention to, check out Freedom House.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,309
Best answers
0
@ SailorAlea, like you said, it was just silly.

I was being more sarcastic with the child to death. I knew those lil bastards were covered by the child labor law. (lol, US History class ftw)

I'm not VERY familiar with anything about the actual human rights so after my shower I'll read about it.

SailorAlea said:
Not just our executive branch, our legislative branch has had issues with the council, as well as a handful of other countries.
Why?
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
Apparently we provided funding, but chose not to take a seat. Why? Because it's essentially a front for the Middle Eastern countries to air grievances against Israel defending themselves from Palestinian and Libyan terrorists, while ignoring serious violations in other countries.
Why were we funding this organization in the first place if we truly believe they are nothing more than a front?
 
New Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
64
Best answers
0
I'm glad you think so. I tend to agree, however your post has no value and is flamebait for people who disagree. No more of this will be tolerated.

how is that flamebait im in the military bush is in my chain of command if anyone disagree's with me then i want you to work for him and see some of your friends get killed in iraq then you can say something like i disagree until then i don't care what anyone else has to say
 
New Member
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
1,478
Best answers
0
@ SailorAlea, like you said, it was just silly.

I was being more sarcastic with the child to death. I knew those lil bastards were covered by the child labor law. (lol, US History class ftw)

I'm not VERY familiar with anything about the actual human rights so after my shower I'll read about it.



Why?
Because of the previously mentioned ignoring of major human rights violations in North Korea, Iran, China, etc, and focusing on Israel, which in my experience shows enormous restraint. I can't imagine any other country on the entire planet, or the history of mankind, that would tolerate weekly rocket attacks, suicide bombers and car bombs, with a military capable of obliterating their opponents.

Why is it my job to do your research for you?

Why were we funding this organization in the first place if we truly believe they are nothing more than a front?
I don't think it was when it was founded.


Vahn9 said:
how is that flamebait im in the military bush is in my chain of command if anyone disagree's with me then i want you to work for him and see some of your friends get killed in iraq then you can say something like i disagree until then i don't care what anyone else has to say
Your comment was needlessly inflammatory and contributed nothing to the conversation. If you want a soapbox to talk about how much you hate the President, do it on your own platform. This isn't the place for it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top