Human Rights Day Turns Into America-Bashing
The United Nations, desperate for some sort of relevance in the world, celebrated Human Rights Day by slamming the United States. (Hat-Tip: Captain's Quarters)
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005906.php
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/07/AR2005120702189.html?nav=rss_world
Louise Arbour, the high commissioner for human rights at the United Nations, presented the most forceful criticism to date of U.S. detention policies by a senior U.N. official, asserting that holding suspects incommunicado in itself amounts to torture.
What sort of torture is this? We have held POWs before without this sort of criticism, so what has changed now. These are illegal combatants that deserve no protections under the Geneva Convention, and will face military tribunals for their war crimes. If the UN wants a "civilized" war, then let the US abide by the rules of the Geneva Convention, and prosecute this war to the fullest extent under our power. They opted out of the war the moment they supported the blocking of our effrots in Iraq.
She also expressed concern in a news conference with efforts by some U.S. policymakers to exempt CIA interrogators from elements of the U.N. Convention Against Torture. Vice President Cheney's office has sought to block efforts by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and other lawmakers to subject CIA personnel from the 1984 convention's ban on the use of cruel or degrading treatment of detainees.
Despite what the UN's Convention Against Torture states, degrading and humiliating treatment is not torture. Torture is physical and psychological trauma designed to injure, cripple, or maim detainees in an effort to achieve actionable intelligence. Panties on a detainees head, and piles of naked men do not equate to torture. We are dealing with an enemy that still believes in Seventh Century ideals, and the best way to break them is through these methods. And as for Sen. McCain, he is undermining the effrots of the administration in his push towards a torture ban. The US does not utilize the methods of torture. We have alws against this. Sen. McCain's law is not only redundant, but in making headlines with it, it is giving our enemies an advantage that we cannot afford to let them have. They have to think that we are willing to use means that go above and beyond what they know about.
But sources on Capitol Hill said yesterday that the administration is backing down on its opposition to the proposed legislation, after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in Ukraine that U.S. personnel are prohibited from violating the U.N. Convention on Torture while overseas. The administration has previously said the agreement does not apply abroad.
The administration would be smart not to support the McCain proposal. Sen. McCain is not the president, and that means he is not the commander in chief. He is a lowly senator, and a bad one, at that. The president has war powers to wage, conduct, and prosecute wars the United States is involved in. Every time garbage like this, or the Murtha Amendment comes up, it is just one more example of politicians thinking they can run this war better than the president, the administration, and the commanders in the field. This is what happened in Vietnam, and it seems to me as though representatives like McCain, Murtha, Pelosi, and Kerry want to return the bygone days of Vietnam.
Arbour's statement said that the "absolute ban on torture, a cornerstone of the international human rights edifice, is under attack. The principle once believed to be unassailable -- the inherent right to physical integrity and dignity of person -- is becoming a casualty of the so-called 'war on terrorism.' "
Good! I am glad to hear it. These limp-wristed, namby-pamby wimps have no idea what it takes to wage a war against a free nation. We are doing this, and quite frankly I could care less what the UN thinks.
John R. Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, criticized Arbour, calling it "inappropriate" for her to choose a Human Rights Day celebration to criticize the United States instead of such rights abusers as Burma, Cuba and Zimbabwe. He also warned that it would undercut his efforts to negotiate formation of a new human rights council that would exclude countries with bad rights records.
"Today is Human Rights Day. It would be appropriate, I think, for the U.N.'s high commissioner for human rights to talk about the serious human rights problems that exist in the world today," Bolton told reporters. "It is disappointing that she has chosen to talk about press commentary about alleged American conduct. I think the secretary of state has fully and completely addressed the substance of the allegations, so I won't go back into that again other than to reaffirm that the United States does not engage in torture."
He added: "I think it is inappropriate and illegitimate for an international civil servant to second-guess the conduct that we're engaged in in the war on terror, with nothing more as evidence than what she reads in the newspapers."
Here, here, Ambassador Bolton. The UN is one to talk. They recognize thuggish dictatorships around the world, from China to North Korea and Zimbabwe to Cuba, as legitimate "free" governments. They refuse to condemn them at all, and even reward them with memberships to the Human Rights Council, like Cuba and Libya. In addition, Ms. Arbour would be wise to remember that the UN is complicit in it's own abuses of human rights. The sex slaves used by UN officials and peacekeepers in the Congo and Liberia.
UN peacekeepers sexually abused and exploited local women and girls in Liberia and more accusations are expected, a UN spokesman said Friday. ...
"The allegations range from the exchange of goods, money or services for sex to the sexual exploitation of minors. The peacekeeping department here in New York as well as the mission on the ground are taking appropriate follow-up action," he said.
A UN official speaking on condition of anonymity said the number of allegations could eventually total 20.
The above comes from the Jerusalem Post, reported from May 1, 2005. (The link is outdated; the quote comes from Captain's Quarters.)
She's known in the community as a "one-dollar U.N. girl." At night, she sleeps on the cracked pavement outside a storefront. In the mornings, she sashays through the dusty streets, clutching a frayed parasol against the blinding sun.
Yvette and her friends are also called kidogo usharatis, Swahili for small prostitutes. They loiter outside the camps of U.N. peacekeepers, hoping to sell their bodies for a mug of milk, a cold soda or -- best of all -- a single dollar.
"I'm sad about it. But I needed the dollars. I can't go farm because of the militias. Who will feed me?" asked Yvette. At 14, she has a round face with wide eyes beneath a cap of neatly shorn hair, and her hands rest on her hips in an older girl's pose.
When Yvette was 10, a militiaman raped her, leaving her without clothes, she recalled. She cried a lot, wrapped her body in rags and then got up. She sought counseling at a women's organization, where she was told that she had done nothing wrong but that the theft of her virginity made her worthless as a bride. She should understand, the counselors said, that now no man would marry her.
This comes from the WaPo from May 21, 2005. (Again, the link is dead, but the quote comes from Capt. Ed Morrissey.)
This is the UN's legacy at the beginning of the new millenium. It is one of corruption and of human rights abuses. And, I would like to point out that it was the UN who decided to define "human rights," which is a joke to begin with. They defined it, then they break their own rules continuously. And, need I remind our readers that it was the UN that wasin the thick of the Oil-For-Food scandal; a scandal in which countless thousands of innocent Iraqis suffered. The money and the food never reached them. It stopped at Saddam's doorstep. They can claim they have no culpability in this, but the truth is already out there, and the world knows the organization's own human rights abuses.
Arbour, a former Canadian Supreme Court justice, did not name the United States in her statement. But she criticized two elements of U.S. counterterrorism policy: the use of severe interrogation techniques -- which the CIA has authorized -- and the rendition, or transfer, of suspected terrorists to countries that have engaged in torture.
She also questioned the value of the U.S. practice of obtaining diplomatic assurances from governments that they will not torture such individuals. "There are many reasons to be skeptical about the value of those assurances," she said. "If there is no risk of torture in a particular case, they are unnecessary and redundant. If there is a risk, how effective are these assurances likely to be?"
Arbour said that "moves to water down or question the absolute ban on torture, as well as on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" are "particularly insidious." She added that "governments in a number of countries are claiming that established rules do not apply anymore: that we live in a changed world and that there is a 'new normal.' "
They do not apply any longer. This war is not against flagged, notable soldiers. These animals lurk in the shadows, and terrorize populaces. Their rights, as far as I am concerned, are void the moment we have them in custody. And for her to accuse us of this is reprehensible. We have taken every care possible at Gitmo to assure these people are treated well. Yes, we had Abu Ghraib, but much like My Lai in Vietnam, the prisoner abuse in Iraq was an isolated incident. Mr. Bolton is further vindicated because he points to her information source: The MSM. The media is thoroughly distorting the truth of what we are doing, and speculating on things they have no knowledge of.
It is preposterous that the UN condemns us. They have enough of their own problems, and they would be wise to address them first. As a famous comedian once remarked, "You don't walk out of your glass house to take a big-ass baseball bat to your neighbor's glass house."
The UN does not just live in a glass house. They live in a house of cards that just may fall over when America has had enough of their antics. And good riddance to them when it does happen.
The Bunny ;)
The United Nations, desperate for some sort of relevance in the world, celebrated Human Rights Day by slamming the United States. (Hat-Tip: Captain's Quarters)
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005906.php
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/07/AR2005120702189.html?nav=rss_world
Louise Arbour, the high commissioner for human rights at the United Nations, presented the most forceful criticism to date of U.S. detention policies by a senior U.N. official, asserting that holding suspects incommunicado in itself amounts to torture.
What sort of torture is this? We have held POWs before without this sort of criticism, so what has changed now. These are illegal combatants that deserve no protections under the Geneva Convention, and will face military tribunals for their war crimes. If the UN wants a "civilized" war, then let the US abide by the rules of the Geneva Convention, and prosecute this war to the fullest extent under our power. They opted out of the war the moment they supported the blocking of our effrots in Iraq.
She also expressed concern in a news conference with efforts by some U.S. policymakers to exempt CIA interrogators from elements of the U.N. Convention Against Torture. Vice President Cheney's office has sought to block efforts by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and other lawmakers to subject CIA personnel from the 1984 convention's ban on the use of cruel or degrading treatment of detainees.
Despite what the UN's Convention Against Torture states, degrading and humiliating treatment is not torture. Torture is physical and psychological trauma designed to injure, cripple, or maim detainees in an effort to achieve actionable intelligence. Panties on a detainees head, and piles of naked men do not equate to torture. We are dealing with an enemy that still believes in Seventh Century ideals, and the best way to break them is through these methods. And as for Sen. McCain, he is undermining the effrots of the administration in his push towards a torture ban. The US does not utilize the methods of torture. We have alws against this. Sen. McCain's law is not only redundant, but in making headlines with it, it is giving our enemies an advantage that we cannot afford to let them have. They have to think that we are willing to use means that go above and beyond what they know about.
But sources on Capitol Hill said yesterday that the administration is backing down on its opposition to the proposed legislation, after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in Ukraine that U.S. personnel are prohibited from violating the U.N. Convention on Torture while overseas. The administration has previously said the agreement does not apply abroad.
The administration would be smart not to support the McCain proposal. Sen. McCain is not the president, and that means he is not the commander in chief. He is a lowly senator, and a bad one, at that. The president has war powers to wage, conduct, and prosecute wars the United States is involved in. Every time garbage like this, or the Murtha Amendment comes up, it is just one more example of politicians thinking they can run this war better than the president, the administration, and the commanders in the field. This is what happened in Vietnam, and it seems to me as though representatives like McCain, Murtha, Pelosi, and Kerry want to return the bygone days of Vietnam.
Arbour's statement said that the "absolute ban on torture, a cornerstone of the international human rights edifice, is under attack. The principle once believed to be unassailable -- the inherent right to physical integrity and dignity of person -- is becoming a casualty of the so-called 'war on terrorism.' "
Good! I am glad to hear it. These limp-wristed, namby-pamby wimps have no idea what it takes to wage a war against a free nation. We are doing this, and quite frankly I could care less what the UN thinks.
John R. Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, criticized Arbour, calling it "inappropriate" for her to choose a Human Rights Day celebration to criticize the United States instead of such rights abusers as Burma, Cuba and Zimbabwe. He also warned that it would undercut his efforts to negotiate formation of a new human rights council that would exclude countries with bad rights records.
"Today is Human Rights Day. It would be appropriate, I think, for the U.N.'s high commissioner for human rights to talk about the serious human rights problems that exist in the world today," Bolton told reporters. "It is disappointing that she has chosen to talk about press commentary about alleged American conduct. I think the secretary of state has fully and completely addressed the substance of the allegations, so I won't go back into that again other than to reaffirm that the United States does not engage in torture."
He added: "I think it is inappropriate and illegitimate for an international civil servant to second-guess the conduct that we're engaged in in the war on terror, with nothing more as evidence than what she reads in the newspapers."
Here, here, Ambassador Bolton. The UN is one to talk. They recognize thuggish dictatorships around the world, from China to North Korea and Zimbabwe to Cuba, as legitimate "free" governments. They refuse to condemn them at all, and even reward them with memberships to the Human Rights Council, like Cuba and Libya. In addition, Ms. Arbour would be wise to remember that the UN is complicit in it's own abuses of human rights. The sex slaves used by UN officials and peacekeepers in the Congo and Liberia.
UN peacekeepers sexually abused and exploited local women and girls in Liberia and more accusations are expected, a UN spokesman said Friday. ...
"The allegations range from the exchange of goods, money or services for sex to the sexual exploitation of minors. The peacekeeping department here in New York as well as the mission on the ground are taking appropriate follow-up action," he said.
A UN official speaking on condition of anonymity said the number of allegations could eventually total 20.
The above comes from the Jerusalem Post, reported from May 1, 2005. (The link is outdated; the quote comes from Captain's Quarters.)
She's known in the community as a "one-dollar U.N. girl." At night, she sleeps on the cracked pavement outside a storefront. In the mornings, she sashays through the dusty streets, clutching a frayed parasol against the blinding sun.
Yvette and her friends are also called kidogo usharatis, Swahili for small prostitutes. They loiter outside the camps of U.N. peacekeepers, hoping to sell their bodies for a mug of milk, a cold soda or -- best of all -- a single dollar.
"I'm sad about it. But I needed the dollars. I can't go farm because of the militias. Who will feed me?" asked Yvette. At 14, she has a round face with wide eyes beneath a cap of neatly shorn hair, and her hands rest on her hips in an older girl's pose.
When Yvette was 10, a militiaman raped her, leaving her without clothes, she recalled. She cried a lot, wrapped her body in rags and then got up. She sought counseling at a women's organization, where she was told that she had done nothing wrong but that the theft of her virginity made her worthless as a bride. She should understand, the counselors said, that now no man would marry her.
This comes from the WaPo from May 21, 2005. (Again, the link is dead, but the quote comes from Capt. Ed Morrissey.)
This is the UN's legacy at the beginning of the new millenium. It is one of corruption and of human rights abuses. And, I would like to point out that it was the UN who decided to define "human rights," which is a joke to begin with. They defined it, then they break their own rules continuously. And, need I remind our readers that it was the UN that wasin the thick of the Oil-For-Food scandal; a scandal in which countless thousands of innocent Iraqis suffered. The money and the food never reached them. It stopped at Saddam's doorstep. They can claim they have no culpability in this, but the truth is already out there, and the world knows the organization's own human rights abuses.
Arbour, a former Canadian Supreme Court justice, did not name the United States in her statement. But she criticized two elements of U.S. counterterrorism policy: the use of severe interrogation techniques -- which the CIA has authorized -- and the rendition, or transfer, of suspected terrorists to countries that have engaged in torture.
She also questioned the value of the U.S. practice of obtaining diplomatic assurances from governments that they will not torture such individuals. "There are many reasons to be skeptical about the value of those assurances," she said. "If there is no risk of torture in a particular case, they are unnecessary and redundant. If there is a risk, how effective are these assurances likely to be?"
Arbour said that "moves to water down or question the absolute ban on torture, as well as on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" are "particularly insidious." She added that "governments in a number of countries are claiming that established rules do not apply anymore: that we live in a changed world and that there is a 'new normal.' "
They do not apply any longer. This war is not against flagged, notable soldiers. These animals lurk in the shadows, and terrorize populaces. Their rights, as far as I am concerned, are void the moment we have them in custody. And for her to accuse us of this is reprehensible. We have taken every care possible at Gitmo to assure these people are treated well. Yes, we had Abu Ghraib, but much like My Lai in Vietnam, the prisoner abuse in Iraq was an isolated incident. Mr. Bolton is further vindicated because he points to her information source: The MSM. The media is thoroughly distorting the truth of what we are doing, and speculating on things they have no knowledge of.
It is preposterous that the UN condemns us. They have enough of their own problems, and they would be wise to address them first. As a famous comedian once remarked, "You don't walk out of your glass house to take a big-ass baseball bat to your neighbor's glass house."
The UN does not just live in a glass house. They live in a house of cards that just may fall over when America has had enough of their antics. And good riddance to them when it does happen.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 2:26 PM
1 Comments:
"Human rights" is a UN buzz word. If I was a sign carrying portestor, my sign would be colored red, white and blue on both sides with the language EVICT THE UN and HANG ANNAN. It's time we stop supporting the UN. It is not our friend. It's our enemy. I urge everyone to read the UN agenda. It's scary. It sees itself as the ruler of the world. They have everything in place except a standing military although they have the patch, music, etc. The latest is the World Criminal Court. President Bush refused to sign on. President Bush also refused to sign on giving the UN exclusive jurisdiction over the oceans. Bolton stopped the effort of the UN to control the internet and a tax it Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home