Comments on: Obama Official Says U.S. ‘Not Perfect’ in Human Rights at U.N. Panel Meeting

By: Joshua Persons

Joshua Persons — Thu, 21 May 2009 14:12:41 +0000

Sorry my reply is a week late, but I figured I should correct leftylurker’s reading of my post. I specifically and seriously stated an area “where the US has been less than perfect on human rights issues”. My one-item list was not intended to be exhaustive, but rather illustrative of a point. Unless LL intended to reply to tankertodd — in which case I understand the incredulity.

By: aesthete

aesthete — Fri, 15 May 2009 17:51:23 +0000

As civil_truth stated, I will hold fire on this one until it is more clear what the statement was intended to do. After all, technically speaking, the statement is a correct (if obvious) one, and if there is a reasonable rationale behind it, I can deal with it being made.

That said, given what we know of the Obama Administration so far, I think that it wouldn’t be unreasonable to believe that the statement is simply a continuation of the domestic theme that he has been expanding of the “historic presidency”, where all was wrong in the world until the Good Lord Obama deigned to ascend to the lowly office of president, or that this statement was simply a strawman constructed to make him look more enlightened than his rightist opponents. If so, I take serious issue with the idea that statement. Objectively speaking, we have had a human rights record that is, far and away, superior to that of the rest of the world, especially when you adjust for such factors as the incredible diversity of our population and our status as world leader. Moreover, I must ask, who are we apologizing to? Apart from the former tribal nations of the Americas and possibly Canada, there really isn’t any nation-state that I can think of whose treatment at our hands was so bad as to merit an apology, and it’s somewhat tardy to apologize to them, anyways.

As a side note, I think that it’s interesting that Canada is never included in the nations that we need to apologize to. Is it because it shares a common Anglo culture, and therefore, doesn’t merit the same respect given to “nations of color”?

By: Common_Cents

Common_Cents — Thu, 14 May 2009 22:15:02 +0000

By: 6eorge Jetson

6eorge Jetson — Thu, 14 May 2009 21:50:32 +0000

By: Rod_Patrick

Rod_Patrick — Thu, 14 May 2009 21:33:28 +0000

By: civil_truth

civil_truth — Thu, 14 May 2009 21:27:59 +0000

…and recognized that this reflected a slavery to the sacred texts on the altar of which the firemen (and the religious authorities who mandated this) sarificed their their compassion – and indeed, their humanity,

And this also echoed with my past struggles with the tyranny of abusive fundamentalism and the aftermath that continues to ripple to this day.

And I do recall my immediate reaction to 9-11 was to realize that I had unmistakably and undeniably seen genuine evil.

By: blooch

blooch — Thu, 14 May 2009 21:22:47 +0000

with a 30 paragraph cut-and-paste screed to argue that banning DDT was one of our greatest human rights triumphs.

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Thu, 14 May 2009 21:18:47 +0000

By: leftylurker

leftylurker — Thu, 14 May 2009 21:09:01 +0000

They did some unambiguously evil things, and the US knew that they were, since they had been training people for almost 40 years by the time the El Salvador incidents occurred.

Don’t get me wrong. I LOVE my country. I love it enough to face the facts though. I agree with civil truth though. We have no business apologizing to Saudi Arabia, to name one country.

It was actually an incident in Saudi Arabia that broke through my critical race theory undergraduate training. I read about how a school full of girls burnt to death, while the firemen, KEPT THEM INSIDE the burning building, untill female relatives could rescue them.

After that I had had enough with moral relativism.

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Thu, 14 May 2009 21:05:50 +0000

as the answer to AIDS in Africa

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Thu, 14 May 2009 21:05:08 +0000

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Thu, 14 May 2009 21:04:07 +0000

however, even on that, I would have to know the details, given that I would consider not taking steps to prevent mass terrorist slaughter as an egregious human rights violation.

By: leftylurker

leftylurker — Thu, 14 May 2009 21:03:30 +0000

What body has the authority to determine whether something is a human rights abuse by the way?

By: leftylurker

leftylurker — Thu, 14 May 2009 21:00:24 +0000

3 since 1980? Can I use examples where the US supported human rights abuses through proxy? I’ll restrict that to examples where there is clear agency, i.e., the actions were supported explicitly by the US Government, or that the US Government had actual or constructive knowledge that their agents were committing abuses.

By: Common_Cents

Common_Cents — Thu, 14 May 2009 21:00:23 +0000

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Thu, 14 May 2009 19:15:17 +0000

I can honestly say that I have a hard time finding acts of commission since 1980. I can say that the Dems’ abandonment of South Vietnam in 1975 was egregious.

You will note that the above and all of those that follow would not be deemed human rights violations by the Drive-by media, dem party and the left.

Roe v Wade – was the act of a rogue court.

The Boland amendment of the dems in the 80s opposing aid to the Nicaraguan contras.

Abortion policies under Clinton and Obama.

Abandonment of Iraqis by Bush41 at end of Gulf War.

more later re ObamaDems since Jan 20

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Thu, 14 May 2009 19:04:42 +0000

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Thu, 14 May 2009 19:04:07 +0000

I am speaking of three inhumane policies.

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Thu, 14 May 2009 19:02:08 +0000

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Thu, 14 May 2009 19:00:26 +0000