1
   

Ex-UN chief: America has 'lost its moral compass'

 
 
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 12:55 pm
Quote:
http://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/TIMESHeadBGLogo_1.gif

Ex-UN chief: America has 'lost its moral compass'
By Times Online and agencies

March 20, 2006


http://images.thetimes.co.uk/TGD/picture/0,,280747,00.jpg

Mary Robinson (Obed Zilwa/AP)


The United States has lost its moral compass and fallen out of step with the rest of the world in the wake of September 11, the former United Nations human rights commissioner warned tonight.

Mary Robinson expressed sadness and regret at America’s erosion of human rights as part of its "War on Terror".

In a speech in central London, Mrs Robinson praised the British courts for taking a global lead on interpreting international human rights laws.

Highlighting the US’s opposition last week to the creation of a new UN Human Rights Council, Mrs Robinson said: "It illustrates the seismic shift which has taken place in the relation of the US to global rule of law issues. Today, the US no longer leads, but is too often seen merely to march out of step with the rest of the world."

She added that she hoped it was a "temporary loss of moral compass".

Speaking at an event organised by human rights and law reform group Justice, Mrs Robinson - who is also the former President of Ireland - criticised government’s use of Big Brother-style language to cover up their activities.

"Misuse of language has also led to Orwellian euphemisms, so that ’coercive interrogation’ is used instead of torture, or cruel and inhuman treatment; kidnapping becomes ’extraordinary rendition’," she said.

The former Irish leader disputed the argument that the post 9/11 world meant that human rights could be curtailed in the name of security. This would lead to democracies "losing the moral high ground", she said.

"Almost five years after 9/11, I think we must be honest in recognising how far international commitment to human rights standards has slipped in such a short time," she told an audience at Middle Temple Hall.

"In the US in particular, the ambivalence about torture, the use of extraordinary rendition and the extension of presidential powers have all had a powerful ‘knock on’ effect around the world, often in countries that lack the checks and balances of independent courts, a free press and vigorous non-governmental organisation and academic communities.

"The establishment of an off-shore prison in Guantanamo (and) its retention in the face of the most principled and sustained criticism ... are all aspects of this situation."

Mrs Robinson went on: "The tables have turned, and it is UK rather than US courts which are taking a lead as interpreters of fundamental human rights, on the basis of the European Convention and - by extension - the body of international human rights treaty law.

"This new situation is well illustrated by recent House of Lords decisions, most notably their ruling that evidence obtained through torture is inadmissible in any proceedings before UK courts."

But she warned that "political decisions" in Britain - such as pre-trial detention periods or limiting the right to peaceful demonstration - could become examples used to justify the behaviour by the state in less democratic countries.

timesonline
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 349 • Replies: 3
No top replies

 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 01:20 pm
If the only reason for this persons "condemnation" of the US is the "NEW and IMPROVED" UN Human rights Council and our vote to reject it, I agree with our rejection.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/14147215.htm

"Last week, the United Nations approved creation of a reformed human-rights panel that falls short of U.S. criteria for membership. That's disappointing because the U.S. proposal would have made it harder for serial human-rights violators to sit on the panel. But even so, the new Human Rights Council can turn out to be an improvement over its discredited predecessor if U.N. members are serious about restoring the organization's credibility in the realm of human rights.
Ambassador Jan Eliasson of Sweden, president of the General Assembly, led the push for approval of the new council. Among the reforms he outlined:
• Suspension clause. Before, there was no way to remove countries with bad human rights records. The suspension clause creates a way.
• Peer review. Members of the old Human Rights Commission were insulated from scrutiny -- one reason rogue nations consistently sought membership. Now, they would be first in line for scrutiny.
• Majority vote. Under the old process, members were elected on regional slates with the support of a relatively few countries. Now, members must earn a majority vote of U.N. members, or 96 votes.
These rules are better. But the only way to ensure that the new Human Rights Council lives up to its name is for U.N. members to insist that all countries on the panel have a clean record. That means rejecting countries with detestable human-rights records, such as Cuba and Sudan.
To put it plainly, the United States got clobbered when it lobbied for tougher rules, losing the vote by a margin of 170 to 4. Having lost that battle, the U.S. delegation must work harder to make the new Human Rights Council a success."

If the major criticism is the so called "torture" of prisioners, then she is as misguided as the rest of them.
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 01:39 pm
Quote:
If the major criticism is the so called "torture" of prisioners, then she is as misguided as the rest of them.


This coming from a person who supports 'torture', is like asking the drug addict for his/her approval before banning drugs.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Mar, 2006 02:59 pm
freedom4free wrote:
Quote:
If the major criticism is the so called "torture" of prisioners, then she is as misguided as the rest of them.


This coming from a person who supports 'torture', is like asking the drug addict for his/her approval before banning drugs.


Who supports torture..you presumptious nit-wit!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Ex-UN chief: America has 'lost its moral compass'
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 03:36:23