United States Quits Human Rights Council

reply to post by pavil

---

Algeria even criticised UK anti-terrorism policy and released a report about it to the UNHRC...

Algeria is the same nation that is reported to have torture chambers under their anti-terrorism policy and many citizens have spoken out about their experience. These were raised at the UNHRC, but Algeria ( who is on the panel ) declared the reports as false and propaganda

UNHRC sided with Algeria and not the United Kingdom.

I liken this to Obama pulling out of the Trinity Christian Church, even though his was a purely political move. Disassociating oneself from evil is not a crime. And the person who suggested we are using it to commit full scale human atrocities is just plain wrong.

The UN is ineffective. Look at what happened with Saddam - he ignored 17 UN resolutions over a period of 12 years. He would still be committing atrocities today if we hadn't stepped in.

And the comparison of waterboarding to atrocities is ridiculous. It seems some people will go to any length to try to paint the US as the world's worst country.

reply to post by jsobecky

---

Saddam was our boy. We armed him, funded him, and politically aided him before we decided to call him a bully..The US has a long record of doing just that.

As for everything else, I agree, the UN is ineffectual. But the US DOES commit crimes against humanity, we can't ignore that either. By funding and arming secret wars, rebel groups, international terrorists. All of it. The CIA has their hands very dirty.

Several Guantanamo detainees have died because of torture practiced by the Army and the CIA.

I will agree that comparing Saddam to the US is just plain wrong. But we have to set an example. We can't keep finding excuses to not follow the law while expecting others to live up to them.


[edit on 8-6-2008 by projectvxn]

reply to post by projectvxn

---

Yes, but nowhere near the record of the UK or the USSR, or older cultures like the Romans.





Once again, nowhere near the scale of Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Saddam, Hitler, Mugabe, Rwanda, Papa Doc, Baby Doc, Castro, Stalin, Kim, Ahmadinejad, etc., etc., etc.



Really? Several? Hadn't heard that. I have seen videos of al Qaeda murdering their captives, though.

reply to post by jsobecky

---

There are only documented cases, no video of the deaths themselves. There is also reports from former detainees that were held without charge as enemy combatants, even though most of these people were either at the wrong place, or journalists. Google this:


Al Jazeera Journalist freed from Guantanamo.

reply to post by jsobecky

---

I am sorry to agree with jsobecky, but dictators and undemocratic governments have walked all over the UN. UNHRC became an institution, which protected many of these undemocratic nations. Heck, the UNHRC and the UN itself supports these nations;

Morocco
Algeria
Mali
Niger
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Chad
Libya
Sudan
Somalia
Syria
Lebanon
Iraq
Kuwait
Saudi Arabia
Yemen
The UAE
Oman
Iran
Afghanistan
Pakistan
Bangladesh
Indonesia
Malaysia
North Korea
Cuba

What do they all have in common? These are nations that do not recongise or refuse to have diplomatic relations with a fellow UN member called Israel. The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is the only "nation" the United States does not recongise, which is not a UN member. Most of the nations - who do not recongise Israel - sit on the UNHRC council and use the body to launch investigation after investigation into Israel. Zimbabwe, Sudan, Saudi Arabia have never been investigated by the UNHRC.

Also, it is well documented about the UN sex scandels in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and corruption that has gone on at the UN. So, the UN itself is far from perfect.

Blaming the United States and saying "the CIA is a lot worse" is ignoring the undemocratic and political bias of the UNHRC just because certain members cannot put conspiracy theories aside.

so , the genocidal fascist USA has abandoned the human rights council ... finally the true face of USA has exposed by its actions

Everytime the United States invades and occupies another country without provacation and on trumped up and bogus charges... we lose crediblity...

Everytime the United States unconditionally backs Israel regardless of how egregious their behaviour... we lose crediblity...

Everytime the United States conducts a rendition on someone... we lose crediblity...

Everytime the United States ships someone off to a country that tortures... we lose crediblity...

Everytime the United States locks someone up in a secret prison... we lose crediblity...

Everytime the United States denies someone due process... we lose crediblity...

Everytime the United States refers to the Geneva Conventions as quaint... we lose crediblity...

Everytime the Untied States defends waterboarding... we lose crediblity...

Everytime the United States supports corporate rights over individual rights... we lose crediblity...

Everytime the United States refuses to stop manufacturing and selling land mines... we lose crediblity...

Everytime the United States discounts the opinions of the rest of the world... we lose crediblity...

Is it any wonder then that other more disreputable nations ignore our rhetoric about human rights then?

Before we condemn others... the United States needs to get its own house in order.



[edit on 9-6-2008 by grover]

reply to post by grover

---

I noticed that you haven't answered my question of :

How exactly would you engage Sudan? A country that denies access to UNHRC missions and denies any Human Rights problems in Darfur?

reply to post by manson_322

---

No actually manson, most genocidal fascist murders STAY on the UNHRC, take a look if you doubt me. Glad you had a chance to get your daily U.S. bashing in.



[edit on 9-6-2008 by pavil]

reply to post by pavil

---

I did answer you... I said to engage them continually. It doesn't matter how but basically keep the pressure up and not back down... in short be in their face about it.

Actually, it looks more to me like they could have stayed like the rest, but decided they were more important than the HRC, and walked as a "up yours"... which is a pretty common action to find in American International relations.

Actually, the United States does not.
Maybe resolutions against Israel have resulted in up to 30 members deciding to abstain on the vote, not just the United States. The media never reports it, but majority of the nations who back it are those who do not recognise or refuse to have diplomatic ties with Israel (the same group who run the UNHRC).

Here is some more work from the UNHRC



Freedom House - Press Release UNHRC
Wiki UNHRC

So, the UNHRC has decided not to investigate North Korea, Burma and Cuba but bash Israel and the West instead? UK, France and China gave up and just voted for a bias Israel resolution just to "shut them up".

Even the Chinese think the UNHRC is a joke!

Some middle eastern countries make the women wear hijabs etc, It isn't oppressing them, it is part of their Culture!

Correct me if I am wrong, but making someone wear an item against their wishes is oppression. Women are arrested in Iran if they decide not to "cover up". Flogging is the punishment in Saudi Arabia. Are you suggesting that beating women are apart of the culture too

So, judging by your premise then equally the actions undertake by the Chinese government in Tibet are apart of Chinese culture.

No, because China is occupying Tibet, unlike the people in for instance, Saudi Arabia where it has always been there cultural ethnics to do such things.

My two pennies.

reply to post by pavil

---

and USA is too resp for genocide and war crimes against humanity ..
USA is the bigger evil and those nations are lesser evil

so how about first we eliminate the bigger evil...

No. Let me explain.

Saudi royal family impose the dress onto women via the law, if it was cultural ethics the Saudi women would accept it, but they do not. Law in Saudi Arabia prevents women from driving, voting and dictate their expected standards.

Law does not equal culture.

A normal american citizen quote:

----Human rights? what human rights? we have human rights?