human rights violations - usa 2002

[spookz]

The US State Department released the "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2002" on March 31, when the United States is facing condemnation from people of various countries in the world for unilaterally launching a war against Iraq.

With the United States pretending to be "the world's judge of human rights," the reports once again assessed the human rights situations in over 190 countries and regions in the world.

The reports carry distorted pictures and accusations of human rights conditions in China and other countries, but they mention not even a word of the human rights problems in the United States itself.

Therefore, it is necessary to make known to the world the human rights violations in the United States in 2002.

http://www.china.org.cn/english/2003/Apr/60849.htm

 

[Nasor]

This is really just too funny, coming from China of all places.

 

[Mystech]

Pot to Kettel: you are black!

Seriously, though, this reminds me of an episode of Star Treck in which the farengi(sp?) expressed their disgust toward the federation for forcing their females to wear clothes, hehe.

I. Ineffective Protection of Life and Security of Person


In American society, excessive violence has resulted in ineffective protection of life and security of the person.

Gasp! The United States has violent crime! Who would have thought, haha! And certainly the government is doing nothing to stop this, in fact I bet they are even endorsing it!

II. Serious Human Rights Violation by Law Enforcement Officials


The rights of ordinary Americans have met with challenge after the September 11 terrorist attacks. The anti-terrorism law USA Patriot Act, which took effect on October 26, 2001, provides law enforcement agencies with greater powers for investigation, including wiretapping of phone calls and Internet E-mail communications by suspect terrorists.

OK I've gotta' admit that they caught us red handed with the whole patriot act thing. Bad move on Heir Ashcroft's part.

III. Money-driven Democracy


Boasting itself to be the "model of democracy", the United States has been trying hard to sell to the world its mode of democracy.


In fact, American "democracy" has always been democracy of the rich, a small number of the population. Just as an article in the International Herald Tribute of the January 24, 2002 issue says, "The American problem is domination of politics by money."

Shameless socialistic pandering. Lord forbid the wealthy should have any influence in the nation.

IV. Poverty, Hunger and Homelessness


The United States is the only superpower in the world, however, the poor, hungry and homeless have formed a "Third World" in this most developed nation, owing to the widening gap in wealth between the rich and the poor and social injustice.

More communist filtering. Better a world where those who work and know a trade can make a living, then one where the government tries tomake it ever more appealing for it's citizens to simply not work, and drag everyone into poverty.

V. Women and Children Are in Worrisome Situation


Discrimination against women is common in the United States. USA Today reported on January 6, 2003 that women hold merely 14 percent of seats in Congress.

Descrimination against women?! This has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. There may be some left over cultural biases against women in some parts of the nation, but there's certainly no government factor involved in this, nor does any of it amount to a human rights violation.

VI. Deep-rooted Racial Discrimination


Racial discrimination is deep-rooted in the United States.

This is a lot less of a problem than it used to be. It's not government sponsored any more, for one. Also, I'd like to dare anyone to show me a multi-cultural nation where there is absolutely no racial tension.


Laugh at the rest of these once I get a little more time, i have a class to attend.

 

[Mystech]

VII. Blunt Violations of Human Rights in Other Countries


The United States is following unilateralism in international affairs and has frequently committed blunt violations of human rights in other countries.

Oops, they got the US here again. Yeah we often do poke our nose in where it doesn't belong and quite often some bad shit goes down. At the same time though we provide massive amounts of forign aid, so we do kind of go both ways on this issue.

VIII. Double Standards in International Field of Human Rights


The United States, taking a negative attitude toward the international human rights conventions, is one of the only two countries in the world that have not ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. To date, it hasn't ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which have got ratification from or accession of most countries in the world.

This is mostly because the US likes the idea that it's a sovereign nation and is, maybe a little too often, inclined to decide that it'll leave the governing to it's own government, and stay away from international regulation.

That was a pretty pathetic sham of a list, really, where was all the really juicy stuff. All pretty dull and mild if you ask me.

The premise was pretty weak to begin with. The "Oh yeah well you've got human rights violations, too!" argument isn't really very effective against America. It's kind of like Afganistan (before we rooted out the taliban) coming out with a statement calling America a terrorist nation. The "No you are!" argument doesn't really work so well if you can't back it up.

 

[spookz]

Shameless socialistic pandering. Lord forbid the wealthy should have any influence in the nation.

http://www.igpa.uiuc.edu/ethics/lecture-Cox.htm

More communist filtering. Better a world where those who work and know a trade can make a living, then one where the government tries tomake it ever more appealing for it's citizens to simply not work, and drag everyone into poverty.

balance the budget, utilise a sound fiscal policy and the shit outlined in link below will not occur

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/08/60II/main535732.shtml

where was all the really juicy stuff

what juicy stuff?

 

[Persol]

balance the budget, utilise a sound fiscal policy and the shit outlined in link below will not occur
I agree with you here, but this did not appear to be the original point. You original link was mostly propoganda.

 

[spookz]

well naturally it would be. defining human rights violations is usually a political decision which is why the us will not judge itself. china steps up to the plate and i find that hilarious. nevertherless, they will point out shit that the us govt will not. if you expect it to be unbiased.....

here is a more independent viewpoint

mystech
please continue with your expose

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by spookz
what juicy stuff?

That's kind of my point.

 

[grazzhoppa]

Shameless socialistic pandering. Lord forbid the wealthy should have any influence in the nation.

But what China said was true though. You don't see that politics is driven by money as well as any position of power in the US democracy? It may not be a unique characteristic in world goverments, but what you quoted was true.

And Lord forbid the middleclass shall have a say in huge matters of the government. The protests to war in Iraq went unheeded...Bush did not acknowledge them. The largest protests since Vietnam War and civil rights yet they affect jack squat in the goverment.

More communist filtering. Better a world where those who work and know a trade can make a living, then one where the government tries tomake it ever more appealing for it's citizens to simply not work, and drag everyone into poverty.

Here, the issue of work ethic will be viewed entirely different by people living in democracies and people living under Communism. After being taught from birth you must work hard to achieve success, no one would be able to understand how there is a place where you work for a cause instead of a goal (such as becoming rich and retiring in your later years).

Descrimination against women?! This has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. There may be some left over cultural biases against women in some parts of the nation, but there's certainly no government factor involved in this, nor does any of it amount to a human rights violation

Would the United States have a woman as president. NO! Democratic Britain has no problem with their Prime Minister being female, but the US wouldn't have an elected female president if she was more than qualified for the job. Hopefully that will change as well as the attitude towards women in the US.

This is a lot less of a problem than it used to be. It's not government sponsored any more, for one. Also, I'd like to dare anyone to show me a multi-cultural nation where there is absolutely no racial tension.

I don't want to nitpick too much, but if it's considered a human rights violation to have racial discrimination, then it doesn't matter if "everyone" is doing it. But you definately hit on a biggie that China overlooked: the US government doesn't sponser it anymore.

Although I agree with you, Msytech, about it being almost childish, it's important not to ignore things happening inside the US. Especially when the government's foreign policies seem to shape how they govern inside the country; the Patriot Act is an example. When the US is out fighting terror and brandishing its military and conquering evil-doers, the government lets domestic issues slip by....even if they are aware of them. Their policies seem to project security before well-being which would be a nice debate in itself.

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by grazzhoppa

Would the United States have a woman as president. NO! Democratic Britain has no problem with their Prime Minister being female, but the US wouldn't have an elected female president if she was more than qualified for the job. Hopefully that will change as well as the attitude towards women in the US.

Thats really just an opinion, and frankly I don't see it the same as you. I don't see why, if a strong woman candidate was put foward by either party that people wouldn't vote for her. I think a woman president would be a very simple thing to acheive in today's climate.

 

[grazzhoppa]

I didn't mean that people wouldn't vote for her, just that against a male with similar political qualities she wouldn't win....although if you replaced the main demo./repub. candidate in the 2000 election with a female candidate with the same positions on issues, the woman would have an edge-over because the economy was well off, life was good, and people would be willing to risk a change, of course when considering the opposition.

To me, it seemed like the boyish Bush image and the stale Gore images played a major role in the election. Image is a huge factor for jobs. You couldn't get a job if you dressed casually for a job interview. With the presidency, quick judgements, slogans, and stereotypes, make for a large part of a deciding vote (at least for the people who don't know if they are voting Repub. or Demo. beforehand).

Americans aren't too idiotic, but when the most important issues are similiar, the next criteria for deciding will be their image. But again, you're definately right, that it wouldn't be hard putting a woman into office if she was what the people wanted in a political figure. The descrimination isn't that bad, but it's there.

It may be just an opinion, or educated guess, but to me it's how things are today. I was too talking too broadly when I said "...the US wouldn't have an elected female president if she was more than qualified for the job."

 

[otheadp]

an interesting read, although they (China) shouldn't talk.