Slashdot Mirror

The UN is pathetic and should be dismantled. This is an organization that has a "human rights committee" staffed by such countries as Iran and Libya. It's a total joke.

No one of the elected members is from said countries. They're actually very respectable persons. You can download their CVs. Also, denying countries access to councils and committees just gives them an excuse to completely ignore the whole thing, but if you let them take part they will be held to higher standards.

That was a quote from the wikipedia, not the actual document. You are welcome to read the actual treaty (here Which is in fact a treaty and therefore would require the nation itself to pass/amend the laws as necessary to enact it. Protections are for the law, not for the treaty. That is the whole point of having people sign on to the treaty and craft their own laws to match their culture rather than passing a "one law to rule them all".

And regarding who determines what's "best for the child", that's already the law in the US. So this treaty would change nothing in that respect. In other words all you have is FUD and the "OMG, but maybe something bad could happen if we really thought hard enough about scaring our selves."

BTW, in case you are looking for more FUD to spread about it, the treaty also bans capital punishment on children, prostitution, and child porn.

Can't wait to hear how not being able to chop their heads off is bad for children.

It is a mistake to assume that governments still have unlimited leeway to do whatever they want within their borders. That is why we have human rights: to protect individual citizens against their states, and that's why organisations like Human Rights Watch can express opinions on the human rights situation in all countries, including China. In the past sixty years, these rights have grown from what you would probably call utopian ideals into actual legal rights in international law, so much so that the originally non-binding Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which celebrates its 60th anniversary this year, is now considered to be an expression of customary international law. If a notion of customary law is too vague for you, the fact still remains that the great majority of states have signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees the freedom of speech in Article 19, which includes the "freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds". This right can only be restricted in accordance with the provisions of that article. China has signed up to this treaty, although it still has to ratify it. However, as a matter of treaty law it has to refrain from acts which would be incompatible with the purpose of the treaty there's quite a strong argument that arbitrary censorship violates it.

I will be the first to admit that there are all kinds of shortcomings in the protection of human rights through international treaties, but the only point that I want to make here is that you are incorrect when you state that every government "has the right to dictate the rules within its boundaries". That right is no longer absolute, and in large part this is the result of governments providing the stick they are beaten with themselves by signing human rights treaties. It took only sixty years to get where we are now, so the utopian society you mention may be less than a thousand years away.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the U.S. is a signatory http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm#art17 >> Article 17 >> 1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. >> 2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. also interesting >> Article 7 >> No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation. and >> Article 20 >> 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.

Well, it wasn't she but he. This was all about the president knowingly lying to the American people in the State of the Union Address, to propogandize for war, something that is illegal for countries that have signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm. There is a report on this here: http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/ngos/ art%2020%20shadow%20rpt%20final.pdf. It was her husband, rather than she who pointed the lie out in the NYT.

Since then it has been more and more lying which led to the conviction of Libby who is covering up for others and is currently being rewarded for that.

Well, it wasn't she but he. This was all about the president knowingly lying to the American people in the State of the Union Address, to propogandize for war, something that is illegal for countries that have signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm. There is a report on this here: http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/ngos/ art%2020%20shadow%20rpt%20final.pdf. It was her husband, rather than she who pointed the lie out in the NYT.

Since then it has been more and more lying which led to the conviction of Libby who is covering up for others and is currently being rewarded for that.

The Bill of Rights is not an all-inclusive list. It just lists some of the specific rights that were felt, at the time, needed to be specifically enumerated due to recent experiences with the British Crown and its agents.

The Right to Privacy has been confirmed by SCOTUS as a fundamental right that is only to be violated with due process (meaning court-ordered warrants). Warren and Brandeis do a pretty good job of explaining it in this 1890 brief. While this largely applies to Right of Privacy from private interests, it applies also to the government. Never mind the fact that the US ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Article 17 of which states: "1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation."

Of course, the ICCP doesn't apply to US domestic law (only international law), exception are made in times of formally declared exigencies, and the US ratified with the disclaimer that Articles 1-26 are not self-executing.

However, ratification of this treaty serves to reaffirm the US's belief in the Right to Privacy as a fundamental humand right.

But here's the thing -- noone acts as if China are doing particularily well in these areas, neither do China currently act as "world police", waving the banner of freedom and democracy, and claiming to be chief protector of those values.

For that matter, China doesn't even particularily seem to care if other countries ignore human rigths.

When you go out in the world, invade other countries, wave the banner of freedom and democracy around, it is to be excepected that people will be bothered by this "image" and see it as fake when they're confronted by stuff like Gitmo.

There are (lots of!) places worse than Gitmo in China, no doubt about it.

But the thing is, like you say, US citizens are free to protest Gitmo. They're even free to toss out those politicians responsible for trampling americas reputation in the mud. Yet they do not. To me that's a mystery.

Most americans I know are *proud* of their freedoms. Consider human rigths *important*. Want the world to have more freedom and less torture, less inhumane punishments, less repression, less people in jail without a fair trial. That's why I don't understand why you tolerate such abuses from your own government.

At last: "We may be bad, but atleast we're better than China" is true. But it makes you wonder, doesn't it ? If you have to compare yourself to *China* to come out the winner, just how deeply have you sunk ?

Sure, you're not alone in refusing to sign the convention on childrens rigths, you share that honor with Somalia. That give a warm cuddly feeling ?

The thing is, I don't get it. I'm absolutely positive, if you where to read the declaration (available here) for the US public and ask if they're in favor or not, literally 95% (or more) would be in favor, and you're a democracy, so I don't understand why you don't demand your government gets with the program.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/y4gcpcp.htm

http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/civilianpersons.h tm

the truly relevant passage can be found here, Just for future reference

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
   • (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
   • (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

I'll quote from here instead: http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/prisonerwar.htm

Art. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

I can see your point in this. A literal interpretation of the article means that the requirements in (2) can be circumvented by waving your hands and saying: "I'm a part of the armed forces", in effect invalidating (2) completely. (As an aside, I'm not sure if Al-Quida did this.)

So, even if your interpretation seems closer to the text, I'd wager a guess that the writers simply found it evident that all armed forces would satisfy the requirements in (2). The convention was written right after WWII, in which most saboteurs, infiltrators and spies where shot. I do not believe many countries would have signed the convention if it meant outlawing the execution of spies in times of war.

If my memory serves me (I should stress that I am not a lawyer nor particularily knowledgable of this subject), the conventions do not in other ways than this article deal with the grey area between a soldier and a civilian. Your claim that everyone who's not a soldier is a civilian, even if they carry weapons and shoot at soldiers, does strike me as surprising. Could you find a citation for this?

During WWII, a lot of fighting had been in the grey zone between soldier and civilian. It cannot have been an oversight that these are not covered, more likely it's a deliberate attempt to force people to either satisfy the article, or stay completely out of the conflict.

I agree with the last part of your post, about the insurgents. Those you listed deserve the full protection of the Geneva Conventions.

That all sounds wonderful.

But how does one actually do it? How do you "make the U.N. more effective and then enforce its resolutions swiftly and firmly. with U.N. garb", when the United Nations is clearly unwilling to do so? How do we deal with an organization that allows Sudan to retain its current seat on the U.N. Commission on Human Rights at the very time that Sudan is committing genocide (or, in the words of the U.N.'s own High Commissioner for Human Rights, "a disturbing pattern of disregard for basic principles of human rights and humanitarian law, which is taking place in Darfur for which the armed forces of the Sudan and the Janjaweed are responsible."

This is, of course, the same U.N. Commission on Human Rights that was chaired by Libya in 2002 at the same time Libya was defying U.N. Security Council resolutions calling on it to turn over the terrorists who blew up Pan Am 103 and answer for other terrorist attacks around the world.

Look, I would like the support of the rest of the world. But I have absolutely no faith in the U.N.'s ability to actually resolve conflicts which involve dictators (all of whom, of course, are members of the U.N. itself) and terrorists. The U.N. almost presupposes a certain amount of rationality and good will among its members when it tries to end conflict. This is just not always the case, and when it isn't, the U.N. is organizationaly incapable of dealing with it effectively.

Remember that one of the main reasons President George H. W. Bush did not invade Baghdad during the first Gulf war was because he did not have unanimous support from the international community to do so. That didn't pan out so well.

Again, I agree that your goals are laudable. But I don't see how to change it in the current global situation, and I certainly don't think we will make it better by refusing to do what me must to defend ourselves.

And in terms of the current presidential race, if John Kerry were saying how corrupt the U.N. was and his first job would be to bring about U.N. reform so that it would actually have the will and desire to enforce its own resolutions, then I might support him. But he has offered no vision other than his own ability to somehow persuade our allies to go along with us in the future.

yes Iraq WAS (past tense ;-) a 'disgrace' for having violated numerous UN Security council resolutions, each of which authorized "serious consequences" (diplo-speak for war) ... UN Security Council Resolutions on Iraq

yes Iraq WAS (past tense ;-) a 'disgrace' for having violated human rights (coalition abuse != Saddam-era torture)... UN Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Iraq and also view the Iraq torture video clip