Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Obama, AZ & The UN Human Rights Council  
User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5391 posts, RR: 14
Posted (3 years 11 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2377 times:

Well, it seems President Obama (and The United States) has not only joined the UN HRC (thus, lend legitimacy to this sham of an organization) but has reported Arizona as a possible human rights violator.

http://aclj.org/TrialNotebook/Read.aspx?ID=996

Let me say (write) that again. The President of The United States has reported Arizona, a state in The United States as a human rights violator.

To sue a state of The Union is one thing...that kind of keeps it in the family, so to speak. But to throw a State out to the UN and claim it is violating the rights of its residents, is beyond the pale. He brings this dispute before Cuba, Libya, North Korea, Camaroon, etc. Allowing these paragons of Human Rights to pass judgement? Incredible.

You know, I have written in this forum and discussed with various liberal friends that I don't dislike or hate Obama, but I do dislike his policies and hate what he's doing to this country. I've mentioned that I could see myself hanging out with the man in different circumstances. But, that is changing. The more I learn of the man and his character, the more I move to the dislike column.

He has gone against the wishes of the populace in his policies and his agenda. He is bankrupting this nation and he continues to dig. He goes against public opinion and lies to the people.

This man is petty. He is small. He is selfish. He is spiteful and prideful. If he doesn't get his way, he seeks vengeance or retribution. He is not a good man.

It is my fervent wish and desire that he fail in his bid for re-election, not just because of his policies, but because of his character.


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21556 posts, RR: 55
Reply 1, posted (3 years 11 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2363 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Thread starter):
The President of The United States has reported Arizona, a state in The United States as a human rights violator.

That's a rather creative interpretation (as one might expect from the website of an organization supporting the law). What the report did was cite the debate over the Arizona law (of which the federal government's suit is a component) as one of many human rights issues that the US is dealing with. Other issues mentioned in the report are things like the Fair Pay Act (gender equality), the effort to repeal DADT (gay rights), as well as defenses of the the practice of trying terrorism suspects in military tribunals (on the grounds that it is not a violation of human rights to do so).

It's not a stretch by any means to say that there is a human rights component to the debate over the Arizona law, though obviously whether you believe it's a human rights violation or not depends on which side you take in the debate.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...clude-arizona-human-rights-report/

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5391 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (3 years 11 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2361 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
It's not a stretch by any means to say that there is a human rights component to the debate over the Arizona law, though obviously whether you believe it's a human rights violation or not depends on which side you take in the debate.

You know, that's really not my point. My point is that a sitting president has thrown a US state, and by extension, the United States, in front of a bunch of dictators for judgment.

Does he hate this country that much?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinesan747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4942 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (3 years 11 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2357 times:

Who cares? I thought most conservatives think the UN is an irrelevant and useless organization. Why care about what other nations or the UN think of us now? I dare say most Republicans could give less than rat's behind about the opinion of ANY country concerning our policies.

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):

It's not a stretch by any means to say that there is a human rights component to the debate over the Arizona law, though obviously whether you believe it's a human rights violation or not depends on which side you take in the debate.

Exactly. To not at least acknowledge and understand that some people view the actions in Arizona as a violation of their rights is to choose to remain ignorant and closed-minded. We can argue whether it IS a violation of human rights, but if you can't understand how some people would think it is, then nothing productive can come from debate on the issue.



Scotty doesn't know...
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21556 posts, RR: 55
Reply 4, posted (3 years 11 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2355 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 2):
My point is that a sitting president has thrown a US state, and by extension, the United States, in front of a bunch of dictators for judgment.

Again, a rather creative interpretation.

Members of the Human Rights Council submit national reports from time to time on the state of human rights in their country - present issues, initiatives, successes, etc. The US has done the same. It's really a chance for the government to toot their own horn (and you can be pretty sure that the reports of some members of the council contain a lot of horn-tooting - generally, the more horn-tooting you do, the worse your record is).

The idea that Arizona has been put up for judgement is simply not true. The report is about the US as a whole, and contains only a brief mention of the law, and passes no judgement on whether it is a violation or not. It's mentioned because it is a present issue.

The full text of the mention is in the article I linked above (yes, it's just that one paragraph), but if you want to read the report in its entirety, you can do so at the link below (the passage is on page 20).

http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Do...session9/US/A_HRC_WG.6_9_USA_1.pdf

One thing I've noticed about those who dislike the UN is that they always focus on the negative things that the UN does (or, more often, the good things they fail to do). Granted, there are plenty of them, but that's to be expected from a massive organization (hell, we get pissed when our own Congress can't do stuff, and Congress has a whole lot more power than the UN). If people were to really look at the entire work of the UN, they'd see that there's a lot of good that comes out of it, particularly in the humanitarian realm. And sometimes you just have to take the bad with the good.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5391 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (3 years 11 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2349 times:

Again, the point is missed. Irrespective of how I, or anyone else feels about the UN, why is this president doing this? To what end? He is, in fact, putting the US on trial in front of a court of despots and tyrants, with few exceptions.

And you're correct, the wording in the report is softball, but I take issue with the very fact that he mentions AZ as a problem to an international body that riddled with abusers.

These aren't the actions of someone who is proud of his country.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (3 years 11 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2334 times:

Mixed emotions here. For the most part I think Obama is trying to save the hispanic in other states since he could never carry AZ in a general. It's also clear he does not like Jan Brewer at all. Not going to dwell on this. That situation is either going to take care of itself or go right down the crapper if the violence on the border escalates because the minutemen are just waiting for an excuse. Regardless of how it plays out in the courts.

User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 16
Reply 7, posted (3 years 11 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2292 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
It's not a stretch by any means to say that there is a human rights component to the debate over the Arizona law,



Yes , it is a stretch . Our immigration law is important and just because it makes life inconvenient for some does not mean it is a violation of human rights. Its black and white ... don't sneak in to our country . Migrate all you want legally just abide by the law. The progressives love to apply the human rights argument to everything ... every law could be overturned arguing the human right element.



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21556 posts, RR: 55
Reply 8, posted (3 years 11 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2278 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 5):
why is this president doing this? To what end?

Why is the US submitting the report? An effort to lead by example. Why is the AZ law mentioned in the report? To describe the official government position on an issue that has attracted global attention. Nothing more.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 5):
He is, in fact, putting the US on trial in front of a court of despots and tyrants, with few exceptions.

As mentioned, he's not.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 5):
I take issue with the very fact that he mentions AZ as a problem to an international body that riddled with abusers.

Show me where it's mentioned as a problem. Not just mentioned, but specifically mentioned as a problem.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5391 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (3 years 11 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2239 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 8):
Show me where it's mentioned as a problem. Not just mentioned, but specifically mentioned as a problem.

It is implied that the law is a problem because it has been challenged by the administration and that parts of it have been enjoined.

"The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that
the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is
ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined."

Doen't say that the law mimic federal law does it? Doesn't mention that the law was passed, legally, in response to the federal government's inability or unwillingness to enforce its own laws, does it?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21556 posts, RR: 55
Reply 10, posted (3 years 11 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2220 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 9):
Doen't say that the law mimic federal law does it? Doesn't mention that the law was passed, legally, in response to the federal government's inability or unwillingness to enforce its own laws, does it?

Why would it, when that's not the federal government position? I can understand that you don't like the government's opposition to the law, but that's a completely different argument from what gets included in the report.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19510 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (3 years 11 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2205 times:

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 7):

Yes , it is a stretch . Our immigration law is important and just because it makes life inconvenient for some does not mean it is a violation of human rights. I

Um... The right to a nationality is a basic human right. So it is a human rights issue. And then there's that troublesome privacy thing. Yanno, "Papers, Please."

You and I are on the same side of this argument. We both call for abolition of jus soil. We differ on some details of implementation (I want to grant amnesty to those illegally here prior to the revocation of jus soil, you want to spend god-knows-how-much hunting them down after it's revoked) but you cannot argue that it's not a human rights issue.

The issue is: "Which nationality do babies born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants have the right to?" Also: "What is 'reasonable suspicion' that someone is an illegal immigrant?"


User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5391 posts, RR: 14
Reply 12, posted (3 years 11 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2170 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 11):
The right to a nationality is a basic human right.

But, they have a nationality, don't they?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 11):
The issue is: "Which nationality do babies born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants have the right to?"

No, that is not the question under scrutiny in S.B. 1070.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 11):
Also: "What is 'reasonable suspicion' that someone is an illegal immigrant?"

You know, that's up to police procedure and ultimately the court to decide.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19510 posts, RR: 58
Reply 13, posted (3 years 11 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2117 times:

So you claim there's "no issues."

Then what are we talking about?


User currently offlineStuckInCA From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1956 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 11 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2111 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 5):
He is, in fact, putting the US on trial in front of a court of despots and tyrants, with few exceptions.

Um. What? I think that's a pretty dramatic (not to mention incorrect) representation.

Despots and tyrants with few exceptions. On trial. LMAO!


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8124 posts, RR: 26
Reply 15, posted (3 years 11 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2101 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 2):
Does he hate this country that much?

He wears the flag on his lapel, dispatches his wife to act on behalf of military families and the like, and went through the process of becoming President, whatever you think of how that was done. Is there a single person who has served in the office, regardless of their actions, that did so because they *hated* the country? Listen to yourself man - might be a good idea to check in somewhere restful for a few days.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5391 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (3 years 11 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2095 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13):
So you claim there's "no issues."

Then what are we talking about?



Once again, we are talking about The President of The United States calling out a state in an international forum that is largely a joke in its mission because of its composition. Human rights violations? Come on, there are more human rights violations in a square mile of some of the countries on the council than there is in the whole of The United States.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 15):
that did so because they *hated* the country


Maybe 'hates the country' is the wrong phrasing. Maybe 'hates what the country is', is a more accurate portrayal. He does not like what the US has done. He has repeatedly apologized for our actions; the actions of a sovereign nation acting in its self-interest. He has repeatedly gone against the will of the people in both legal maneuvers and in opinion matters.

And please, do not patronize me. Look at his record in total since he was elected President. He, and his cronies, have done more harm, vastly more harm, than good.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21556 posts, RR: 55
Reply 17, posted (3 years 11 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2076 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 16):
we are talking about The President of The United States calling out a state in an international forum

He called out a state in an international forum (the media) when the federal government sued Arizona. Which you already said you were fine with.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5391 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (3 years 11 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2072 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 17):
He called out a state in an international forum (the media) when the federal government sued Arizona. Which you already said you were fine with.



Semantics. He did not lay the issue at the feet of an international body. He sued in a US Court, to be judged by US judges.

There is a difference. He dilutes US sovereignty by taking or even discussing the issue at the UN.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21556 posts, RR: 55
Reply 19, posted (3 years 11 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2071 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 18):
He did not lay the issue at the feet of an international body.

And he didn't in the report.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6591 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (3 years 11 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2066 times:

The problem with the law is hinted at in the paragraph above the once cited on Fox and the other website :

Quote:
DHS continues to evaluate the program, incorporating additional safeguards as necessary to aid in the prevention of racial profiling and civil rights violations and improve accountability for protecting human rights.

Obama thinks that the AZ law is a problem because people will be asked proof of citizenship based on their skin color, regardless of their citizenship.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (3 years 11 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2061 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 20):
Obama thinks that the AZ law is a problem because people will be asked proof of citizenship based on their skin color, regardless of their citizenship.

This isn't true, AZ police are going to use other criteria when it comes to thinking someone may be in the country illegally. They are not going to just ask every hispanic person they encounter for papers. That is a MSNBC talking point and it's pretty bogus.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6591 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (3 years 11 months 2 days ago) and read 2046 times:

I live in a country where this happens all the time (and is theoretically illegal, too), so I don't believe it can be done any other way.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19510 posts, RR: 58
Reply 23, posted (3 years 11 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2027 times:

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 21):

This isn't true, AZ police are going to use other criteria when it comes to thinking someone may be in the country illegally.

Which criteria specifically are they going to use?


User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 16
Reply 24, posted (3 years 11 months 13 hours ago) and read 1991 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 20):
Obama thinks that the AZ law is a problem because people will be asked proof of citizenship based on their skin color, regardless of their citizenship



No , they do the same procedure to everyone they encounter. Only if you do not have ID will they go further into the status issue. They Are not sitting around picking off Mexicans ..... and pulling them over , they never have and they never will. They dont need too...

Obama has poisoned the well so badly on this issue .... he shows the leader ship skills of a jr high bully. He really is just a political hack who happened to fool enough takers into voting for him. I just spent yesterday all day on the border with Mexico , north of Nogales on the mountain trails...so I am a little tired and Angy.



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
25 DocLightning : Which flies in the face of several court rulings about requiring citizens to carry ID. The issue is this: if I am a citizzen, I am not required to ca
26 AGM100 : If it is a human right to let every person from anywhere in the world walk into our country ... then abolish INS / Border patrol , and send me a tax
27 Mir : It's both. The sovereignty deals with the borders (and really isn't that much of a question), and the human rights deals what goes on inside the coun
28 NIKV69 : You talk in the context of a secure border and no violence though. If Mexico wasn't out of control and people weren't jumping the border by the thous
29 DocLightning : Where did I say that? Where did ANYONE say that? So you say that the human rights of the Arizonans (citizens) are not an issue, either? The danger th
30 DocLightning : Oh yes. If it weren't for the danger. What was that line from Ben Franklin about trading liberty for security? Oh, yeah, he was just a crazy Marxist.
31 signol : The current UN Security Council members are: UK USA France Russia China Austria Japan Mexico Turkey Uganda Bosnia and Herzagovina Brazil Gabon Lebano
32 Doona : That's all well and good, but as far as I can tell, this discussion is about the Human Rights Council, which is not related to the UNSC. Cheers Mats
33 fr8mech : That's nice, but we're discussing the UN Human Rights Council: Angola Argentina Bahrain Bangladesh Belgium Brazil Burkina Faso Cameroon Chile China C
34 AGM100 : Come on Doc , your twisting it inside out again. The issue of SB 1070 is what the debate is about . Opponents of SB 1070 do not want deterrents put i
35 NIKV69 : Spot on!
36 Post contains links Mir : That's a complete straw man argument. Every country is going to have some human rights concerns - that's how the Human Rights Council works. They cas
37 AGM100 : I agree ,,, like the sanctuary city laws that the DOJ seems to have NO problem with. In fact it creates a permanent underclass of immigrants, it crea
38 Mir : It's a concern. I wouldn't necessarily call it a problem. It certainly pales in comparison to what's going on in Iran. But if you want to agree with
39 fr8mech : I don't think we're agreeing with i'm-in-a-jihad, The President is.
40 Aesma : They ask an ID, but a citizen is not required to have one, so it makes no sense, and obviously they'll have to target "latinos" to try and mitigate t
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Cuba, Saudi Arabia, China On UN On Rights Council posted Wed May 10 2006 08:02:43 by 11Bravo
Democracy, Human Rights, The Origin posted Tue Sep 30 2008 18:08:11 by HapppyLandings
Who Would You Want On The UN Security Council posted Wed Sep 22 2004 19:21:59 by Mdsh00
UN Picks Libya To Head Human Rights Commission posted Mon Jan 20 2003 22:01:57 by Cfalk
Obama's SOTU: The Good, Bad, And Ugly posted Thu Jan 28 2010 06:08:47 by Aaron747
Lord Monckton: Shut Down The UN, Arrest Al Gore posted Mon Jan 25 2010 05:25:06 by Baroque
Does This Infringe On Human Rights? posted Tue Dec 8 2009 04:13:08 by EISHN
Obama At The All Star Game posted Tue Jul 14 2009 18:51:59 by Falstaff
Obama And The Muslim World posted Thu Jun 4 2009 00:32:06 by SOBHI51
Human Rights Wimps Hate Predator Drones posted Fri May 29 2009 15:12:26 by AirTran737