By Larisa Alexandrovna
UN Report A 'Moral Indictment' Of The US
Sat Aug 5, 2006 00:48
UN Report A 'Moral Indictment' Of The US
http://www.rawstory.com/
8-5-6
The United Nations Human Rights Committee has released its final
report after a series of hearings in Geneva last week, which RAW
STORY has learned amounts to a moral indictment of US treaty
violations, as well as what some attendees and delegates described as
US hubris, willful disregard for international and domestic law, and
contempt for the Committee itself.
Understanding the Hearings
At the hearings, signatory nations to the Conventions against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment and Punishment (CAT)
and the 1992 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR)?one of two treaties that make up what is commonly referred to
as the International Bill of Rights-- presented reports on their
implementation of the agreed-upon standards of the treaties. The
Committee holds hearings every four years to review the compliance
status of ICCPR signatory member nations.
As part of that review, the official State report is presented along
with what is called a ?shadow report,? a rebuttal from non-government
organizations (NGO), advocacy groups, and citizen representatives.
The US ?shadow report? was prepared by The Coalition for Human Rights
at Home, a coalition of 142 not-for-profit groups.
The shadow report delivered -- a whopping 456 pages -- documents
domestic human rights abuses generally go unreported. The report
meticulously details over 100 instances of human rights violations,
as a response to the official report by the US. The US for its part
was seven years late in delivering any sort of report, something it
is obligated to do as a signatory of the ICCPR.
Cat and Mouse
The Geneva hearings were only the latest back and forth between the
Committee and the US, following a series of allegations and cases
that have already been well discussed, debated, and reviewed. The
report summarizes just briefly what has been an ongoing attempt by
the Committee to compel the US to participate, as it is obligated to
do by both the ICCPR and CAT, and to explain its reasons for not
participating
The US has thus far offered very little in the support of a self-
proclaimed stellar human rights record. Rather, much of what is
presented at the hearings, in written responses to Committee
questions, and in press statements, shows a nation that on one hand
touts international treaties as necessary, imposing them on other
nations, and at the same time reminds the Committee repeatedly of its
own sovereignty, despite being a full fledged signatory to both the
ICCPR and CAT treaties.
The interplay between the Committee and the US is circular at best,
working essentially like a cat and mouse game. Delegates have
indicated to HYPERLINK "http://rawstory.com"RAW STORY that written
requests for information from the committee are often responded to by
US indications that it has already answered the questions. While the
US typically, they say, specifies when and where they answered
previously, they do not attempt clarify.
A particularly clear example of this can be seen in the US answer
question 13 in one written response to the Committee prior to the
hearings. The question read as follows:
The State Party, including through the National Security Agency
(NSA), reportedly has monitored and still monitors phone, email, and
fax communications of individuals both within and outside the U.S.,
without any judicial oversight. Please comment and explain how such
practices comply with article 17 of the Covenant.
Article 17 of the ICPPR reads thusly:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with
his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks
on his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection
of the law against such interference or attacks.
The US contends that it is compliant, and goes on to cite various
claims: Article 17 of the Covenant provides, in relevant part, that ?
[n]o one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference
with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful
attacks on his honor and reputation.? For reasons described in this
response, the Terrorist Surveillance Program is consistent with this
article.
The US goes on to cite judicial overview and careful safeguards in
place to ensure it only monitors suspected terrorists, as well as
example rulings that are only tangentially connected. The US argument
fails to address the basic issue: that the FISA court was completely
bypassed.
The Geneva hearings on this question went much the same way, with the
US pointing to the previous written response as their answer, as well
as addendums added after the hearings.
Jamil Dakwar, a staff attorney with the Human Rights Program ?
National Legal Department of the
HYPERLINK "http://www.aclu.org"American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU),
who was present at the hearings as part of the NGO delegation, said
he could only describe the interplay ?as a dialogue of deaf.?
The Report
The Human Rights Committee?s final report supports the NGO findings,
presenting issues of concern and indicating how those issues violate
ICCPR and CAT. The report also prescribes remedies by which the
United States can become compliant with treaty obligations, something
that many human rights advocates are not optimistic about.
"The US ratified only three human rights treaties out of seven major
human rights treaties. In fact, the US and Somalia are the only two
countries in the world that have not ratified the Convention on the
Rights of the Child--and Somalia does not have a functional
government!" Said Dakwar.
"Judging from the lack of domestic application of human rights law,
and from the gap between human rights law and US law in many areas,
we can certainly say that the US government had never taken its human
rights treaty obligations seriously," he added.
Setting the tone for the relationship between a frustrated Committee
and a seemingly discourteous and defiant super power, the Committee's
report delivers an opening salvo, stating on page 1:
"The Committee regrets that the State party has not integrated into
its reports information on the implementation of the Covenant in
respect of individuals under its jurisdiction and outside its
territory. The Committee notes however that the State party has
provided additional material ?out of courtesy?. The Committee further
regrets that the State party, invoking grounds of non-applicability
of the Covenant or intelligence operations, refused to address
certain serious allegations of violations of the rights protected
under the Covenant."
The Report covers issues that quite simply read like the US Bill of
Rights - citing freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of
religion, the right to life, and the right to due process - and
focuses on issues extending well into the rest of the US
Constitution, including voting rights and so forth.
For example, the Human Rights Committee report cites the Patriot Act
as a major concern several times, including:
"The Committee, while noting some positive amendments introduced in
2006, notes that section 213 of the Patriot Act, expanding the
possibility of delayed notification of home and office searches;
section 215 regarding access to individuals' personal records and
belongings; and section 505, relating to the issuance of national
security letters, still raise issues of concern in relation to
article 17 of the Covenant. In particular, the Committee is concerned
about the restricted possibilities for the affected persons to be
informed about such measures and for them and recipients to
effectively challenge them. Furthermore, the Committee is concerned
that the State Party, including through the National Security Agency
(NSA), has monitored and still monitors phone, email, and fax
communications of individuals both within and outside the U.S.,
without any judicial or other independent oversight. (articles 2(3)
and 17). (page 6, point 21).
The report also expresses concern about the clear correlation between
race and poverty in America:
"The Committee is concerned by reports that some 50% of homeless
people are African American although they constitute only 12% of the
U.S. population. (articles 2 and 26).? (page 7, point 22.).
The report goes on to express concern about the large number of
undocumented workers within US borders-- and what appears to be a
military solution to the issue. It also emphasizes, both here and
repeatedly in other sections, that the US has not provided adequate
information:
"The Committee regrets that it has not received sufficient
information on the measures the State party envisages adopting in
relation to the reportedly nine million undocumented migrants now in
the United States of America. While noting the information provided
by the delegation that National Guard troops will not engage in
direct law enforcement duties in the apprehension or detention of
aliens, the Committee remains concern about the increased level of
militarization on the southwest border with Mexico. (articles 12 and
26).? (page 8, point 27).
The Committee's questions, hearings, and the report all indicate that
the international community is well aware of US law, Constitutional
issues, and domestic policies that are in clear violation of the
ICCPR, CAT, and State law.
During the media roundtable held on July 17,
HYPERLINK "http://geneva.usmission.gov/Press2006/0717PressBriefing.htm
l"Waxman touted the human rights record of the US with great vigor.
"Indeed, few countries in the world could claim greater protections
of, for example, speech, press, association or religion than the
United States. The United States also historically promotes these
same values around the world and continues to do so as part of the
President's Freedom Agenda," Waxman said.
Facts provided by the US NGO delegation, which numbers 65 citizen
delegates, the largest ever NGO delegation for any State do not
support the position of Waxman and the official US delegation.
Additionally, many of the policies criticized in the report bypass
legislative attempts to correct. President Bush has bypassed
corrective measures by issuing more than 700 signing statements.
Political Cost
The official state delegation from the US was composed largely of
members of the State Department, and was headed by Matthew Waxman,
Principal Deputy Director of the Policy Planning Staff at the
Department of State.
In his opening address,
http://geneva.usmission.gov/Press2006/0718iccprResponse.html Waxman
cited the attacks of September 11, 2001, setting the tone for
subsequent answers to questions the committee raised with regard to
domestic detainment and interrogation of terrorist suspects, and
programs that have been implemented in response:
"First, the United States is engaged in a real, not rhetorical, armed
conflict with al Qaeda and its affiliates and supporters, as noted in
multiple declaration by al Qaeda in the 1990s and as reflected in al
Qaeda's heinous attack on September 11, 2001, an attack that killed
more than 3000 innocent civilians. It is important to clarify the
distinction we draw between the struggle in which all countries are
engaged in a 'global war on terrorism' and the legal meaning of our
nation?s armed conflict with al Qaeda, its affiliates and
supporters."
Waxman, who previously served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Detainee Affairs, and Director of Security & Justice
Affairs in the Washington office of the Iraq Coalition Provisional
Authority, was joined by other key State Department officials and
legal experts as part of the US delegation.
When asked why the US continues to be a signatory to international
human rights treaties if it has no intention of taking seriously its
obligations under those treaties, Lisa Crooms, Constitutional and
international law professor at the Howard University School of Law,
opined that the US wishes to 'maintain some semblance of being a
human rights protector.'
"The political cost of opting out would be too great. It is easier to
claim to be bound and not really be bound," she added.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Videotaped_death_of_US_inmate_at_0725.htm
http://www.rawstory.com/
8-5-6
The United Nations Human Rights Committee has released its final
report after a series of hearings in Geneva last week, which RAW
STORY has learned amounts to a moral indictment of US treaty
violations, as well as what some attendees and delegates described as
US hubris, willful disregard for international and domestic law, and
contempt for the Committee itself.
Understanding the Hearings
At the hearings, signatory nations to the Conventions against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment and Punishment (CAT)
and the 1992 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR)?one of two treaties that make up what is commonly referred to
as the International Bill of Rights-- presented reports on their
implementation of the agreed-upon standards of the treaties. The
Committee holds hearings every four years to review the compliance
status of ICCPR signatory member nations.
As part of that review, the official State report is presented along
with what is called a ?shadow report,? a rebuttal from non-government
organizations (NGO), advocacy groups, and citizen representatives.
The US ?shadow report? was prepared by The Coalition for Human Rights
at Home, a coalition of 142 not-for-profit groups.
The shadow report delivered -- a whopping 456 pages -- documents
domestic human rights abuses generally go unreported. The report
meticulously details over 100 instances of human rights violations,
as a response to the official report by the US. The US for its part
was seven years late in delivering any sort of report, something it
is obligated to do as a signatory of the ICCPR.
Cat and Mouse
The Geneva hearings were only the latest back and forth between the
Committee and the US, following a series of allegations and cases
that have already been well discussed, debated, and reviewed. The
report summarizes just briefly what has been an ongoing attempt by
the Committee to compel the US to participate, as it is obligated to
do by both the ICCPR and CAT, and to explain its reasons for not
participating
The US has thus far offered very little in the support of a self-
proclaimed stellar human rights record. Rather, much of what is
presented at the hearings, in written responses to Committee
questions, and in press statements, shows a nation that on one hand
touts international treaties as necessary, imposing them on other
nations, and at the same time reminds the Committee repeatedly of its
own sovereignty, despite being a full fledged signatory to both the
ICCPR and CAT treaties.
The interplay between the Committee and the US is circular at best,
working essentially like a cat and mouse game. Delegates have
indicated to HYPERLINK "http://rawstory.com"RAW STORY that written
requests for information from the committee are often responded to by
US indications that it has already answered the questions. While the
US typically, they say, specifies when and where they answered
previously, they do not attempt clarify.
A particularly clear example of this can be seen in the US answer
question 13 in one written response to the Committee prior to the
hearings. The question read as follows:
The State Party, including through the National Security Agency
(NSA), reportedly has monitored and still monitors phone, email, and
fax communications of individuals both within and outside the U.S.,
without any judicial oversight. Please comment and explain how such
practices comply with article 17 of the Covenant.
Article 17 of the ICPPR reads thusly:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with
his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks
on his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection
of the law against such interference or attacks.
The US contends that it is compliant, and goes on to cite various
claims: Article 17 of the Covenant provides, in relevant part, that ?
[n]o one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference
with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful
attacks on his honor and reputation.? For reasons described in this
response, the Terrorist Surveillance Program is consistent with this
article.
The US goes on to cite judicial overview and careful safeguards in
place to ensure it only monitors suspected terrorists, as well as
example rulings that are only tangentially connected. The US argument
fails to address the basic issue: that the FISA court was completely
bypassed.
The Geneva hearings on this question went much the same way, with the
US pointing to the previous written response as their answer, as well
as addendums added after the hearings.
Jamil Dakwar, a staff attorney with the Human Rights Program ?
National Legal Department of the
HYPERLINK "http://www.aclu.org"American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU),
who was present at the hearings as part of the NGO delegation, said
he could only describe the interplay ?as a dialogue of deaf.?
The Report
The Human Rights Committee?s final report supports the NGO findings,
presenting issues of concern and indicating how those issues violate
ICCPR and CAT. The report also prescribes remedies by which the
United States can become compliant with treaty obligations, something
that many human rights advocates are not optimistic about.
"The US ratified only three human rights treaties out of seven major
human rights treaties. In fact, the US and Somalia are the only two
countries in the world that have not ratified the Convention on the
Rights of the Child--and Somalia does not have a functional
government!" Said Dakwar.
"Judging from the lack of domestic application of human rights law,
and from the gap between human rights law and US law in many areas,
we can certainly say that the US government had never taken its human
rights treaty obligations seriously," he added.
Setting the tone for the relationship between a frustrated Committee
and a seemingly discourteous and defiant super power, the Committee's
report delivers an opening salvo, stating on page 1:
"The Committee regrets that the State party has not integrated into
its reports information on the implementation of the Covenant in
respect of individuals under its jurisdiction and outside its
territory. The Committee notes however that the State party has
provided additional material ?out of courtesy?. The Committee further
regrets that the State party, invoking grounds of non-applicability
of the Covenant or intelligence operations, refused to address
certain serious allegations of violations of the rights protected
under the Covenant."
The Report covers issues that quite simply read like the US Bill of
Rights - citing freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of
religion, the right to life, and the right to due process - and
focuses on issues extending well into the rest of the US
Constitution, including voting rights and so forth.
For example, the Human Rights Committee report cites the Patriot Act
as a major concern several times, including:
"The Committee, while noting some positive amendments introduced in
2006, notes that section 213 of the Patriot Act, expanding the
possibility of delayed notification of home and office searches;
section 215 regarding access to individuals' personal records and
belongings; and section 505, relating to the issuance of national
security letters, still raise issues of concern in relation to
article 17 of the Covenant. In particular, the Committee is concerned
about the restricted possibilities for the affected persons to be
informed about such measures and for them and recipients to
effectively challenge them. Furthermore, the Committee is concerned
that the State Party, including through the National Security Agency
(NSA), has monitored and still monitors phone, email, and fax
communications of individuals both within and outside the U.S.,
without any judicial or other independent oversight. (articles 2(3)
and 17). (page 6, point 21).
The report also expresses concern about the clear correlation between
race and poverty in America:
"The Committee is concerned by reports that some 50% of homeless
people are African American although they constitute only 12% of the
U.S. population. (articles 2 and 26).? (page 7, point 22.).
The report goes on to express concern about the large number of
undocumented workers within US borders-- and what appears to be a
military solution to the issue. It also emphasizes, both here and
repeatedly in other sections, that the US has not provided adequate
information:
"The Committee regrets that it has not received sufficient
information on the measures the State party envisages adopting in
relation to the reportedly nine million undocumented migrants now in
the United States of America. While noting the information provided
by the delegation that National Guard troops will not engage in
direct law enforcement duties in the apprehension or detention of
aliens, the Committee remains concern about the increased level of
militarization on the southwest border with Mexico. (articles 12 and
26).? (page 8, point 27).
The Committee's questions, hearings, and the report all indicate that
the international community is well aware of US law, Constitutional
issues, and domestic policies that are in clear violation of the
ICCPR, CAT, and State law.
During the media roundtable held on July 17,
HYPERLINK "http://geneva.usmission.gov/Press2006/0717PressBriefing.htm
l"Waxman touted the human rights record of the US with great vigor.
"Indeed, few countries in the world could claim greater protections
of, for example, speech, press, association or religion than the
United States. The United States also historically promotes these
same values around the world and continues to do so as part of the
President's Freedom Agenda," Waxman said.
Facts provided by the US NGO delegation, which numbers 65 citizen
delegates, the largest ever NGO delegation for any State do not
support the position of Waxman and the official US delegation.
Additionally, many of the policies criticized in the report bypass
legislative attempts to correct. President Bush has bypassed
corrective measures by issuing more than 700 signing statements.
Political Cost
The official state delegation from the US was composed largely of
members of the State Department, and was headed by Matthew Waxman,
Principal Deputy Director of the Policy Planning Staff at the
Department of State.
In his opening address,
http://geneva.usmission.gov/Press2006/0718iccprResponse.html Waxman
cited the attacks of September 11, 2001, setting the tone for
subsequent answers to questions the committee raised with regard to
domestic detainment and interrogation of terrorist suspects, and
programs that have been implemented in response:
"First, the United States is engaged in a real, not rhetorical, armed
conflict with al Qaeda and its affiliates and supporters, as noted in
multiple declaration by al Qaeda in the 1990s and as reflected in al
Qaeda's heinous attack on September 11, 2001, an attack that killed
more than 3000 innocent civilians. It is important to clarify the
distinction we draw between the struggle in which all countries are
engaged in a 'global war on terrorism' and the legal meaning of our
nation?s armed conflict with al Qaeda, its affiliates and
supporters."
Waxman, who previously served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Detainee Affairs, and Director of Security & Justice
Affairs in the Washington office of the Iraq Coalition Provisional
Authority, was joined by other key State Department officials and
legal experts as part of the US delegation.
When asked why the US continues to be a signatory to international
human rights treaties if it has no intention of taking seriously its
obligations under those treaties, Lisa Crooms, Constitutional and
international law professor at the Howard University School of Law,
opined that the US wishes to 'maintain some semblance of being a
human rights protector.'
"The political cost of opting out would be too great. It is easier to
claim to be bound and not really be bound," she added.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Videotaped_death_of_US_inmate_at_0725.htm
- Syria Wants to Talk, But Bush Won't Answer the Phone — By Imad Moustapha, Fri Aug 4 22:54
- WHY WAR WITH SYRIA IS INEVITABLE — Damian Lataan, Sat Aug 5 01:02
- UN Report A 'Moral Indictment' Of The US — By Larisa Alexandrovna, Sat Aug 5 00:48
Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
