US Quietly Breaks UN Treaty

[kpete]

US Quietly Breaks UN Treaty
By Leslie Griffith
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Tuesday 26 February 2008

On Friday, at a United Nations meeting in Geneva, the United States broke a series of legal promises. Keeping those promises would have proved extremely embarrassing to the United States government by pointing out that human rights abuses are being committed here at home and at US military installations abroad.

In 1994, the United States Senate ratified the UN CONVENTION ON ELIMINATION OF all forms OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, promising to provide reports every two years on racial discrimination in the United States. The reports were to include anywhere in the world where the US military is in charge. In other words, the United States military, no matter where it was on the globe, agreed to report discrimination. That now includes Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

The treaty is the "supreme law of the land" under the US Constitution, article 6, clause 2. Every nation that signed the treaty (one hundred seventy-seven) was charged with giving a national report on such basic areas of discrimination as health care, education and prison terms. According to the Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute and the National Lawyers Guild, the United States on Friday presented a report to the United Nations Committee, never mentioning Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo or the behavior of US corporations working under US military contracts.

more at:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022608A.shtml

[Solly Mack]

1. surprise

snicker

[spanone]

dupe sorry

[spanone]

2. another international embarassment from jr*

[Hydra]

3. Is anyone surprised?

We are admitting to being just like any other world superpower- above the law.

And yet everyone thinks an election will fix this. As if.

[earth mom]

4. People are dreaming if they think Obama, Hillary or McCain are gonna fix anything.

They are part of the problem.

:grr:

[OneBlueSky]

5. since treaties are approved by the Senate and become U.S. law . . .

this seems to be another prima facie case of Bush failing (or refusing) to "faithfully execute" the law of the land -- which is what the executive branch is charged with doing . . .

how does this (and many similar) failures/refusals to enforce U.S. law does not constitute a clearly impeachable offense? . . .

and why does the Congress continue to fail/refuse to do THEIR constitutional duty and hold the executive accountable? . . .

our government is clearly dysfunctional -- and their actions are clearly unconstitutional . . . if we let them get away with this, what meaning will the Constitution have for future presidents? . . . just a "god-damned piece of paper?" . . .

[malaise]

6. Surprised?

NOT!

[barbtries]

7. a nation of laws

where laws mean nothing. sad.

edited typo

[bdamomma]

8. all these illegal crimes will bite us back if we do not get these SOB's

held accountable.