Talk:Human rights in the United States/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Reverted

I have reverted Raggz's edit on the grounds that this issue was already discussed at length over six months ago, as well as in the talk page archives. There did not appear then to be consensus that the section constituted Original Research. Furthermore, I restored this section once, already indicating my own objection to its deletion. Also, Raggz: Before deleting large amounts of material, it would be nice if you would discuss exactly what you think is wrong with it. I am interested in working on fixing problems with the page, but only in a positive productive direction. Simply saying "OR deletion" doesn't help me (or anyone else here) to address any issues that you have with it. Also, there are a variety of interesting templates available for indicating sections and statements that you feel are unsupported by existing sources, are phrased in a POV manner, etc. Usually, editors post a concise comment on the talk page documenting a controversial edit they would like to make, occasionally accompanied by a template in the section under consideration. Then there is a period of a few weeks in which comments are solicited, so that all parties involved are included in the editorial process. When the opinions of those involved have finally been heard, a WP:CONSENSUS emerges (nearly always based on the opinions of two or more participating editors). Silly rabbit (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Extraordinary rendition

This section is being deleted as OR. There is no evidence offered that any human right was denied. Evidence would be a finding by any US court or international court with jurisdiction that (1)Extraordinary rendition occurs and if it occurs (2) that it violates any law. All that is included are suspicions and allegations of illegal conduct, proof would be a conviction or at least a formal charge. Raggz (talk) 08:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

We appear to have reached tacit Consensus. Raggz (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Legality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq

This section is all OR. First you need to show that some violation of an international law occured - or that some human rights abuse occured. You cannot, not if the standard is a finding by any international tribunal. A war or invasion is not a human rights abuse.

The ICC prosecutor investigated your charges and released a report last year that refutes your charges.

Legality of Iraq War Raggz (talk) 09:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

We appear to have reached tacit consensus on this issue. Raggz (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Health care

There was no reliable source for any human rights violation relating to health care policy. The UN material would fit into the UN section. The UN Commission cannot and does not find human rights abuses, only the Security Council has this authority. The UN Security Council considered the Commission's report and evidence and did not act on these. If it had, this would be a reliable source for actual human rights abuse. It is an allegation that you might want to move to the UN section, the claim would be supportable there. Raggz (talk) 09:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to delete the following text as irrelevant to this topic. Why should it remain? "In addition, the Principles of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association require medical doctors to respect the human rights of the patient, including that of providing medical treatment when it is needed.[62]" Is there a question of physicians not treating patients, or of any violations of this? Waht is this about? Raggz (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Affirmative action

There was no reliable source for any human rights violation relating to affirmative action policy. Raggz (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think relationship between affirmative action and historical racial discrimination (a human rights violation) is well documented. See Supreme Court rulings in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke(438 U.S. 265 (1978)), Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña (515 U.S. 200 (1995)) and Hopwood v. Texas (78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996)). Though I don't know it can be inserted as progress in human rights development or a new form of racial discrimination. --Skyfiler (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent points! I accept your assertions, and withdraw my claim for affirmative action being original research, as long as you edit this section and add the reliable sources that were lacking. I may debate you on the edits, but I accept that these are reliable sources and that this section will not be original research when you edit this in. Raggz (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

We appear to have reached tacit Consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 01:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Prison System

Here is an example of a section that should be retained, yet it is nearly all OR presently. US Courts have found violations of human rights that have occured almost daily. Why should our article focus on listing these? We could if we want to.

"Some have criticized the United States for having an extremely large prison population, where there have been reported abuses.[26]" This is irrelevant. It does not prove that any human rights violation has occured. Violations have occured, cases could be made, but our article has neither.

As of 2004 the United States had the highest percentage of people in prison of any nation. There were more than 2.2 million in prisons or jails, or 737 per 100,000 population, or roughly 1 out of every 136 Americans.[27] "Human Rights Watch believes the extraordinary rate of incarceration in the United States wreaks havoc on individuals, families and communities, and saps the strength of the nation as a whole."[28] Again, no SPECIFIC human rights abuse is proven or even alleged. Incarceration alone is not a human rights abuse.

Examples of mistreatment claimed include prisoners left naked and exposed in harsh weather or cold air;[29] "routine" use of rubber bullets[30] and pepper spray;[30][29] forced immersion in scalding water causing second and third degree burns (one documented case);[30] solitary confinement of violent prisoners in soundproofed cells for 23 or 24 hours a day;[31][29] and a range of injuries from serious injury to fatal gunshot wounds, with force at one California prison "often vastly disproportionate to the actual need or risk that prison staff faced."[30] Such behaviors are illegal, and "professional standards clearly limit staff use of force to that which is necessary to control prisoner disorder."[30] It is against WP policy to invoke an isolated incident or incidents that are unrepresentative. I have no doubt that these and worse events have ocurred and that they seriously violated human rights. The question we have as editors if these are so widespread as to deserve mention? We need not agree, but the rule is that some reliable source need be quoted and this one does NOT suggest that these abuses are widespread.

Human Rights Watch raised concerns with prisoner rape and medical care for inmates.[32] In a survey of 1,788 male inmates in Midwestern prisons by Prison Journal, about 21% claimed they had been coerced or pressured into sexual activity during their incarceration and 7% claimed that they had been raped in their current facility.[33] Tolerance of serious sexual abuse and rape in United States prisons are consistently reported as widespread.[citation needed] It has been fought against by organizations such as Stop Prisoner Rape. Here is an example where I deleted test that I should have retained, so I will revert it. This is a good example: it makes the point that human rights are widespread and so deserves mention.

The United States has been criticized for having a high amount of non-violent and victim-less offenders incarcerated,[28][34][35] as half of all persons incarcerated under State jurisdiction are for non-violent offences and 20 percent are incarcerated for drug offences.[36][37] This text is OR, even though it has relaible sources cited. The sources are not challenged, but the failure to prove RELEVANCE to the article itself is. We not only need cite reliable sources, these sources need to be making points relevant to the article. These sources do not establish that any human rights abuses are occuring in the US. IF this had been established the sources should then be cited, if relevant.

The United States is the only country in the world allowing sentencing of young adolescents to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. There are currently 73 Americans serving such sentences for crimes they committed at the age of 13 or 14. In December 2006 the United Nations took up a resolution calling for the abolition of this kind of punishment for children and young teenagers. 185 countries voted for the resolution and only the United States against.[38] Here is an example of text that should be moved. In this case to the UN Section. The UN action had no legal force, nothing in the General Assembly does, but it has moral force and deserves inclusion. I will move it.

I hope someone has the time to restore this section after taking the time to find reliable sources that suggest that the US prison system is worse or better than those in Italy, the Congo, or Mexico. Unless such a US-specific link is established from a reliable source, this section needs to be an OR deletion. Raggz (talk) 10:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

We appear to have now reached a tacit Consensus on this section? There is a huge body of US judicial decisions on the denial of human rights in prisons. These any UN judicial decisions are relevant, but other authorities require discussion here? Raggz (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Democide

The Philippine-American War, the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Vietnam War, and other conflicts, are cited as democide. This may or may not be true, but this section does not even allege any human rights abuse. Wars are not human rights abuses and cannot be included in this article unless an actual reliable source establishes a human rights abuse. This is OR unless a reliable source for human rights abuse is established. Raggz (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

We appear to have reached a tacit Consensus on this section? Raggz (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The section was removed (by you), and no one has revived it. Silly rabbit (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Treatment of captured non-citizens

Certain practices of the United States military and Central Intelligence Agency have been condemned domestically and internationally as torture.[45] This source does NOT support the claim for torture.

Abuse of prisoners is considered a crime in the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice. According to a January 2006 Human Rights First report, there were 45 suspected or confirmed homicides while in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan; "Certainly 8, as many as 12, people were tortured to death."[47] If this were true, why hasn't Human Rights First brought their evidence to the attention of a US judge or US congressman? If they actually had this evidence and brought it to court, abuse would be ordered to stop and the perpetrators arrested and tried. The only reasonable answer is that they do not have evidence that would be accepted by a court. If they actually have evidence of a war crime and they have withheld it, they are an accessory to the crime themselves. They too would be war criminals. So as editors do we accept a report from a group that is either: (1) lying about their evidence or (2) are war criminals who are withholding this evidence? In either case they are not reliable.

The United States maintains a detention center at its military base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba and its executive branch controversially asserts that prisoners held there are not subject to constitutional protections. Prisoners there generally do not receive trials and detention is indefinite. The US argues that even if detainees were entitled to POW status, they would not have the right to lawyers, access to the courts to challenge their detention, or the opportunity to be released prior to the end of hostilities and that nothing in the Third Geneva Convention provides POWs such rights, and POWs in past wars have generally not been given these rights.[50] However, no-one has ever previously declared war on an abstract concept (terror), and it is questionable whether the Geneva Conventions apply in this case. The legal and political status of this policy is evolving. Part of this is factually in error, but all of it is irrelevant unless some reliable source establishes that some actual human rights abuse has occured. This article is not about Guantánamo Bay and we should refer the reader to that article and not try to debate this issue here.

A delegation of UN Special Rapporteurs to Guantanamo Bay reported that interrogation techniques used in the detention center amount to degrading treatment in violation of the ICCPR and the Convention Against Torture.[51] This is a reliable source making a very solid point. By Ireland v. UK (1978) European human rights law would classify Guantánamo Bay interrogations as degrading treatment (but not torture) See: five techniques.

The point is irrelevant because the article is not about European law, nor does the charge of "degrading treatment" exist in US law, nor do the ICCPR and the Convention Against Torture apply to the US. To be relevant the authority need be binding upon the US, the Security Council, the Congress, or the Judiciary need act, all of whom are aware of these claims and have not acted. If the US were charged with any violation of law, this would be relevant. It is irrelevant to drag EU law into this article because the relevant law offers no support. Raggz (talk) 10:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Every heard of International Customary Law? The European precedents mentioned are relevant because of customary law. Regarding your second statement - what a load of nonsense!! The ICCPR and CAT both apply to the US which has signed and ratified both, and the treaties are legally binding on states. Though it's a fairly typical response to suggest that international law doesn't apply to the US. Pexise (talk) 11:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course International Customary Law is considered by the US judiciary and the UNSC when making judicial decisions. European precedents are irrelevant unless recognized by a US or UN judicial authority, (as is US Customary Law irrelevant in Europe unless judicially recognized.)

If you say that the ICCPR and CAT are binding treaties by US law AND that the US Senate designated them as self-executing, I accept your point. I cannot answer if BOTH of these conditions are true, can you? If you claim that these have both been met I accept your claim.

In the end, the only international law binding upon the United States is what the US Judiciary determine and what the UNSC determine. This is what the UN Charter states, do we agree? Raggz (talk) 06:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about US law it is about the US and Human Rights. The torture which is carried out at Guantanamo Bay is a Human Rights violation. In fact, even if the US hadn't ratified the CAT or ICCPR, the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo would still be a human rights violation. If you suggest otherwise, would you also suggest that political prisoners in Cuba are not denied their human rights because Cuba has not ratified the ICCPR? Pexise (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice that you make an unsupported statement of fact when you are actually expressing your strongly held opinion: "The torture which is carried out at Guantanamo Bay is a Human Rights violation. To make this claim within the article you need to offer a reliable source that supports you. You can find many that share your opinion, but you cannot find one that can support your claim that (1) torture has occured or (2) that any human right has been violated at Guantanamo. If you want a section that mentions the allegations, fine. It just also need state that there is no verification of any allegation (unless you actually can verify this). Raggz (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

See source: UN Special Rapporteur report on Guantanamo, referenced below. Pexise (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

I notice that User:Raggz has made a large number of edits over the past few days, without much input from other editors of this page. The article, as it now stands, is about half of its original size. Some of Raggz's edits no doubt have merit, but I for one cannot say I agree with all of them. Is there any feeling that perhaps we should roll this page back to an earlier version so that the edits can be introduced in a more incremental and inclusive fashion? Silly rabbit (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have restored those portions of the text that I feel should be included. One issue I have with Raggz is that he/she seems to have an extremely narrow view of what constitutes a human right: a human right can only be guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or treaty to which the U.S. is signatory. This all-or-nothing criterion is totally self-serving for someone who would like to see a whitewash of this and other related articles. For one thing, it completely rules out any attempt to bring in the opinions of human rights groups such as Amnesty Interational, which have been critical of the U.S. human rights record (particularly in the recently deleted, and now restored, extraordinary rendition seciton). These sections are going to have to be edited the old-fashioned way: through careful dialog, in which the opinions of various editors are taken under consideration. There is clearly room for improvement, especially in the references, but massive deletions, vaguely citing Wikipedia policy, are simply unacceptable. Silly rabbit (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Roll back as you wish. Collaberation is important. My edits need not stand, the article is the focus here.

The article is ONLY about the United States. Human rights in the United States. Yes, I have this "narrow" view. What broader view is appropriate? Please be specific? Whitewash? Of what? All I'm trying to do is bring focus. Yes, I have a pov. No, my edits are not pov directed (intentionally at least, we all have our own views). Original research is to be dealt with aggressively and deleted, do I need look up this WP policy? OR is not subject to collaberative debate. Many of my edits were OR deletions, but not all.

The extraordinary rendition section was (in my opinion) OR. This article is limited to the US, so a violation of the US Constitution or statutes needs be demonstrated, and this has not been done. I suspect that there is coverage of this elsewhere? In addition to US law, the UNSC has authority (by treaty) and may declare extraordinary rendition illegal. The definition of OR is that you have a reliable source, and there is no reliable source that supports the notion that extraordinary rendition violates human rights in the US. Please offer your source? (It need cite the US law or UNSC international law to apply for this article.)

I continue to state that there is no problem including mere unproven and speculative allegations in this article. All that I ask I that they be accurately decribed as mere unproven and speculative allegations.

WP requires aggressive deletion of OR. I am merely implementing WP policy. if you believe that a section is not OR, just revert, and we will talk. IF the section is OR, there is no discussion required. Raggz (talk) 06:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No. What I see is that you are citing Wikipedia policy to delete anything you don't agree with. You have set unreasonable standards for inclusion, and then anything which doesn't meet those standards, you have deleted as OR. Inexplicably, the fact that Amnesty International, a well-known Human Rights organization, has expressed concern over the US policy of extraordinary rendition, was also deleted as OR. And so forth. I call foul on pretty much the entire endeavor: nearly half of the article was deleted in this manner, and that is simply unacceptable. It was not original research, and the grounds for deletion complete and utter bunkum. Silly rabbit (talk) 06:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I have already said that this is not a legal document. If a well-known scholar, organization, or media organization, raises some question as to potential human rights abuses, then it is fair game for inclusion in the article. We are not limited, as you seem to think, only to those charges which have been adjudicated in an international body such as the UN, or in SCOTUS. Silly rabbit (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Finally, please see WP:OR. Nowhere does it say that application of OR policy trumps any need for discussion. That is another convenient fiction. Silly rabbit (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, read this again, and you are correct. I read something else by Jimmy Wales, but I cannot find it. Point taken, if I find that policy again, we can discuss this again. Sorry.

This is an encyclopedia about a legal subject. It is not a legal document, do we agree?

Do we agree that this article is only about allegations regarding human rights abuses and the United States?

Do we agree that speculative unsupported opinions on this subject need to be identified as such?

Do we agree that an informed and reliable opinion that is a speculative unsupported opinion remains a speculative unsupported opinion? A reliable source may offer a speculative opinion?

Do we agree that a formal charge by a court with jurisdiction would remove the "speculative" issue? If OJ Simpson is expected to be charged but has never been charged, how would we handle this?

Do we agree that reliable sources are necessary, and without them they need be deleted? Raggz (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources are necessary, but much of the deleted material was sourced. As a courtesy The article is not about a legal subject per se. It is about "Human Rights" which is a topic with legal, social, political, philosophical, and even religious dimensions. Speculative opinions can be included, assuming that they are attributed to notable, reliable sources (i.e., they need to be appropriately identified as such). None of this means that half the article has to be deleted without discussion. Much of the material deleted was sourced. Perhaps there were problems with how the statements were phrased? I don't know. Please, if you want to improve the article rather than creating the appearance of simply deleting entire sections you don't agree with, then improve it. Edit the thing. Don't delete.

Also (note to any observers) I am puzzled at the silence around here. One reason that I restored all of that material was so that other editors could participate. The edits you made were simply too sweeping to make all at once. And they were about to get buried in the edit history. Please join in and put a stop to this bickering! Silly rabbit (talk) 07:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, thank you User:Silly rabbit for undoing the deletions carried out by User:Raggz - he certainly deleted a lot of completely valid material and other editors hard work with no prior discussion, very annoying, so thanks for putting a lot of it right.

It seems quite clear to me that User:Raggz has got the wrong end of the stick and doesn't actually understand what this article is about. The article is about Human Rights and the United States (not Human Rights in the United States as misquoted earlier in this discussion). It is not an article about human rights violations that have taken place in the US, although these can and should also be included. The article is primarily about the US in relation to human rights, this means that while the narrow definition of what the US considers its human rights obligations to be should certainly be included, the article must also include the broader international definition of human rights. This means that all of the human rights bodies and instruments of the UN, international human rights organsations, and other research about the US and human rights should be included. To say that we should exclude all material unless it has passed through a US court is ridiculous and also bears no relation to Wikipedia policy.

For example, I included a well sourced passage about the International Bill of Rights and the US's non-participation in this fundamental human rights pact. User:Raggz deleted facts, sourced to the UN and UNOHCHR websites as OR. That was completely unjustified and done with no discussion that I'm aware of.

Also, regarding the universal health care issue, I would suggest looking at the UN Factsheets and the General Comments of the UN ESCR Committee for some sources defining what the right to health consists of as contained in the UDHR and ICESCR.

Finally, there's a report by the UN Special Rapporteur on torture into the treatment at Guantanamo that should definitely be included, I'll have a look for it, but if anyone else wants to include it in the meantime... Pexise (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"The article is primarily about the US in relation to human rights, this means that while the narrow definition of what the US considers its human rights obligations to be should certainly be included, the article must also include the broader international definition of human rights." Agreed. No problem with this.

There are only two sources for applicability of international law to the United States. The first is the US Supreme Court which determines how the treaties that the US signs are to be interpreted. The second is the United Nations. Article 39 of the United Nations Charter reserves the role of ALL determinations of ALL UN policies to the UN Security Council. In any practical sense then, international law citations need to show that either the US Judiciary or the UNSC made a human rights policy determination. International law does bind the US, but only by one of these two authorities.

If anyone has a different idea of how any international law might bind the United States, please share it now. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights IS binding upon the US, but the European Court of Human Rights may not adjudicate this treaty for the US. This role is solely for the UNSC. Likewise, the US Supreme Court may not adjudicate European Human Rights either.

Why is the International Bill of Rights relevant? Why is the US non-participation in a number of European treaties relevant? Is there some law or treaty that requires that the US agree to every treaty that comes along? Is Europe also required to sign every treaty that the US presents, or may Europe sometimes decline? Raggz (talk) 07:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I think you have got the wrong idea about the subject of this article. This article is not called 'International Law as interpreted by the US' - it is about the US and Human Rights. It is not a legal document. Neither is it specifically about the US's transgressions within international law. International human rights refers to the body of human rights treaties, research and pronouncements made by human rights bodies, the UN, international human rights organisations etc. The International Bill of Rights is the foundation of these and as such it is extremely relevant that the US is not a full party.

Regarding European treaties - who has suggested that the US should be party to European treaties?

Regarding the US's obligations to adhere to international treaties, there is indeed a moral obligation as international human rights treaties gain their legitimacy from the participation of states that are parties to the treaties. Hence article 28 of the UDHR: 'Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.' The fact that human rights, as set out in the numerous UN treaties, are considered to be universal (applying to EVERYONE) means that the US undermines human rights when it does not participate in the international human rights project.

By not ratifying, for example the ICESCR of the Rome Statute of the ICC, the US is not adhering to this principle.

This is regardless of what you, or the US constitution percieves the US's obligations to be. Please don't argue that the US does not believe that it is subject to these international agreements - that is a tautalogical argument and you have already used it countless times here. Regardless of whether these are legal obligations, they are certainly MORAL obligations, and this article deals with MORAL oligations as well as legal obligations. Pexise (talk) 11:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Just looking at the article again, I think the first, opening paragraph also needs some work to incorporate the international dimension of Human Rights.

By the way, here's the report into Guantanamo: [[1]], the general comment on the right to adequate health is here: [[2]]. Pexise (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

international human rights law vs us human rights law

"Once again, I think you have got the wrong idea about the subject of this article.

I think not.Raggz (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is not called 'International Law as interpreted by the US' - it is about the US and Human Rights.

Agreed. Is there however any form of international law applicable to the US except for the UN? The suggestion that there might be is implied but is not stated. Is this the issue? Raggz (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is about the US and Human Rights, not the US and international law - as I have stated several times already. Pexise (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no rule that laws other than UN and US law are excluded, but the burden is upon you to establish relevancy with some reliable source. "...as I have stated several times already", yes, but we have no idea what you mean. Might you elucidate? Raggz (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not a legal document.

No, it is an encyclopedia article entirely about law however. Raggz (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It is about law and also all the other dimensions of human rights - philosphical, moral and sociological. This is an encyclopedia so should include all aspects of the subject, not just be limited to the legal aspects. Pexise (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Within the legal portion, is there any relevant law except for US/UN law? If so, what? Raggz (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"Neither is it specifically about the US's transgressions within international law."

Are there any? It would be good to add these, with the law, the case name, and the court. Raggz (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes there are - Nicaragua vs the US, International Court of Justice. Please include this in a new section, let me know if you need any references. Pexise (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I would have added this if it remained neglected. I have no issue with inclusion and believe that it is important. Have there been any in the past two decades? Raggz (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"International human rights refers to the body of human rights treaties, research and pronouncements made by human rights bodies, the UN, international human rights organisations etc."

True enough for the US Judiciary and the UNSC. International human rights organisations etc are not part of international law, are they? Raggz (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It is about law and also all the other dimensions of human rights - philosphical, moral and sociological. This is an encyclopedia so should include all aspects of the subject, not just be limited to the legal aspects. Pexise (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There are other dimensions. In regard to the legal dimension, are International human rights organisations part of international law? Raggz (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The International Bill of Rights is the foundation of these and as such it is extremely relevant that the US is not a full party.

There is the question of jurisdiction. One nation may not impose any treaty upon another, this is what international law assures all. Why is this exremely relevant? Is it to advance a pov? Extremely relevant to whom? Raggz (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not mentioning the imposition of a treaty, of course that would violate principles of national soverignty (though funny you should mention that looking at the US bilateral agreements with small nations regarding the ICC). It is relevant because the article about the US and Human Rights - the fact that the US has not ratified one of the fundamental human rights texts is certainly relevant and of interest. What POV are you talking about - please don't make accusations without substantiating them. Pexise (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you are correct. Would this discussion fully include the reasons for declining this treaty, or only attacks? Raggz (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What attacks? All that is stated are the facts - the US has not ratified the treaty. Pexise (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the US's obligations to adhere to international treaties, there is indeed a moral obligation as international human rights treaties gain their legitimacy from the participation of states that are parties to the treaties.

Of course. If the US has violated such, just cite the decision. No problem there. Raggz (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The US is not party to the Rome Statute of the ICC or the ICESCR - two international treaties. By not participating the US undermines these agreements, this is morally questionable. Pexise (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The Statute of Rome was written so that the US could not ratify it, the constitution denies the Congress the authority to remove the fundamental human rights of Americans by any means except an amendment (which usually takes 10-20 years). There are many reliable sources on this. I would like to put all of this in, but is this a wise editorial decision to get into all of that here? The human rights of Americans are greater than elsewhere, so the ICC works elsewhere quite well where human rights standards are at the lower ICC level. Raggz (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point. The problem is is that we now live in a globalised world and the ICC is designed to respond to the challenges that this presents. By pressuring smaller states not to ratify the statute, the US is weakening the rule of international criminal law and undermining human rights and justice in states that are institutionally weaker than the US. This has potentially devastating consequences in terms of human rights violations, impunity etc.

Also, the undermining of the statute and the "hague invasion act" mean that US citizens can commit war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in other countries with impunity (even more problematic because of globalisation). Pexise (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"Hence article 28 of the UDHR: 'Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.' The fact that human rights, as set out in the numerous UN treaties, are considered to be universal (applying to EVERYONE) means that the US undermines human rights when it does not participate in the international human rights project."

The US is protecting Human Rights by not agreeing to this treaty, Would you like the link to the US Department of State on this? Raggz (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The US does agree to the UDHR, in fact it was one of the main authors of the text (Eleanor Roosevelt). Please provide the State Department source you refer to. Pexise (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

By not ratifying, for example the ICESCR or the Rome Statute of the ICC, the US is not adhering to this principle.

Those who believe that human rights guaranteed by the UDHR or ICESCR may approach the US judiciary or the UNSC, correct? Opinions not supported by a decision by either are irrelvant until supported? Decisions by UN organs below the UNSC are a gray area, but I favor noting and citing these. Raggz (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The Government of the United States lacks the authority to ratify any treaty that would remove fundamental human rights of Americans. The US Constitution prohibits this. By what authority should the greater human rights of Americans be reduced to the lower standards required by the ICC treaty? Raggz (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a space to debate these issues, the facts have been set out, there is not further debate. Pexise (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken about the "facts" and this need be debated here if you are to establish your "facts" here. A reliable source for support would help a lot. Raggz (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

jurisdiction

"If a well-known scholar, organization, or media organization, raises some question as to potential human rights abuses, then it is fair game for inclusion in the article. We are not limited, as you seem to think, only to those charges which have been adjudicated in an international body such as the UN, or in SCOTUS. Silly rabbit (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC) " I believe that this article is constrained by its title to human rights and the US. The law applicable to the US in regard to human rights is the ONLY law relevant to this topic? jurisdiction.

There is a great deal of international law. Some of it is relevant to no nation, some to all. Most of it is relevant only to a few, or some nations.

If we were writing about Human Rights and the European Union, how much US law would we include in that article? The right to bear arms is a human right in the US, but it is not in Europe. In regard to this fundamental human right, how much weight would the EU allow for the US constitution in regard to the exercise of this human right within Europe? Raggz (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, this is not necessarily a law article. Human rights have other dimensions beyond merely the legal ones. Second, although the article is about the human rights of the US and its policies, it need not be limited to US or international legal points of view. Indeed, if Amnesty International raises concerns about the behavior of the US, then it is directly relevant to the topic. If there is a debate about the death penalty, and whether it violates basic human rights, then that deserves mention (with appropriate references and NPOV voice). None of this requires any hearing in a legal body: merely the attention of some human rights group, noted expert, etc. I don't see what relevance your EU example has to the point I am making. Silly rabbit (talk) 07:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent points, human rights do have greater dimensions than just legal issues. The first task will be to clearly articulate what extra-legal human rights we are discussing? I'm open, so please explain, specifically?

As for your concerns would a section on speculative allegations work for you? If not, would individually labelling these as speculative allegations work for you? What do you propose? Raggz (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

reversions

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." Raggz (talk) 07:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You need to be more selective in removing the material. Nearly all the material I restored had citations. I haven't checked any of them, but you didn't enumerate any specific issue with it other than vague concerns about OR. If you like, I can make a request for comment. Perhaps I have violated a Wikipedia policy without being aware of it. Silly rabbit (talk) 07:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Most were deleted because they have no relationship to the topic. The citations had no relationship to the topic. The topic is Human Rights and the United States. A human right within the United States is one of two things: (1) a human right articulated by the US Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court or (2) a human right articulated by the United Nations Charter as interpreted by the UNSC (Art. 39).

It is original research to assert that any human right exists in regard to the United States, except as above. The remedy if you disagree is to simply submit the reliable source that claims otherwise. I will be happy to give you some ideas of where to look. Germany (for example) claims universal jurisdiction over the entire world, (much as it did in 1935). You can find and submit reliable sources that say this. When you submit a reliable source (not a speculative opinion by a reliable source) that a human right and the United States is denied by rendition, THEN we move beyond OR. Unless someone does this, I will delete the OR material.

The deletion issue is the lack of ANY reliable supporting source. Many of these deletions had supporting sources that (1) were not reliable (and this was discussed above) or (2) absent or (3) did not have any text that supported the claim, or (4) were not preceeded by a reliable source that established that the human right discussed was relevant to the United States. The most common failing was (4). Almost all appear in talk, please read, if you have not, before reverting. Raggz (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

From reading the talk page (yes I did before restoring) it doesn't look like you have consensus for most of the deletions you made. Incidentally, I don't agree with the stated reason for deleting the death penalty section, which did not have anything to do with sourcing issues. I have replied above. I think progress will gradually occur with regard to the proposed revisions, but they need to be seen by more editors. The discussions above are far from a consensus. Silly rabbit (talk) 08:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you agree that the death penalty section was without a single reliable source that confirms that the death penalty as presently permitted by US law denies anyone a human right (in regard to US or UN law)? If you agree, then it is OR. If there is such a source, please offer it here. Raggz (talk) 08:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that the issue is relevant, as you have presented it. Silly rabbit (talk) 08:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I for one would be more comfortable if a third party would get involved in the editorial decisions. I do not agree with some of your assessments about what can and cannot be included here. Silly rabbit (talk) 08:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

We could move to a third party, but do we agree that US and UN law are the only laws that are relevant to what is and what is not a human right within the US? (Treaties ratified are US law.) What other authority determines what a human right is within the US? IF you accept this premise, the rest of my arguments follow. If you reject it, then they do not. There may be no need to involve a third party. If there is, what is the core issue? Is this it? Raggz (talk) 08:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Human rights organizations. Outside observers, writers. There are plenty of other authorities one can turn to. As I have said repeatedly, Human Rights are not strictly a legal issue, so please stop presenting them as such. The Amnesty International issue which I keep bringing up is a case in point. Silly rabbit (talk) 08:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with any of these proposed sources. Just select a source that cites the legal source for the claimed human right. In the case of universal health care, that would be a US court decision, a US law, a UNSC determination that some international law or treaty was denied, or some equivalent legal authority. I am open to any credible source, all you need to do is to establish that the human right in question actually exists. Any reliable source that you may prefer will do.

Part of the democratic process in the US is to debate potential human rights that might someday be recognized. Reliable sources that assert or deny these potential human rights within the US may be included, but only if accurately characterized. Raggz (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

US constitution

• "It has a powerful and often independent judiciary and a constitution that attempts in many areas to enforce separation of powers to prevent tyranny." This text uses "attempts" but does not support the implication that the judiciary only "attempts" to enforce separation of powers to prevent tyranny. This is thus original research.

• The United States has a powerful independent judiciary ensuring that the constitution enforces the separation of powers and all other constitutional measures designed to prevent tyranny and to protect human rights. Raggz (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Good example. Rather than delete the entire section containing the sentence you object to, remove the single word attempts. I'm not sure I agree with the characterization of this as OR. Poor wording is probably nearer the mark. Silly rabbit (talk) 07:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Your writing skills exceed my own. See above however for why so much was deleted as OR. There needs to be a US nexus, a connection to a US human right, and the article lacks these almost entirely. One would think it was entirely written by Europeans... Raggz (talk) 07:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel strongly that the edit above removes OR. Attempts is not the same as does. The former requires a reliable source and the latter does not absent a challenge. Raggz (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

International Criticism

"The United States government has been criticized for human rights violations, particularly in the criminal justice system and where national security is a concern. Some critics (in both friendly and hostile countries) have criticized the U.S. Government for supporting serious human rights abuses, including torture,[6] legal rendition,[7] assassination,[8] imprisonment without trial[9] and for supporting dictatorships.[10]"

What human rights are being violated? Please cite the human right violated and the court that found this violation (or at least is considering it). None of the citations do this, making these claims OR.

What does supporting dictatorships mean? Is there a nation on earth without diplomatic and treaty relationships with dictatorships? What is a dictatorship? Is Cuba one - or not? NATO is in Afghanistan, is this supporting a dictatorship - or not? Are all NATO members guilty? Whatever does this mean, will someone please make it specific so that I need not delete it?

When I go to the citation it says: "In the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, the United Kingdom and the United States orchestrated the overthrow of the democratically-elected administration of Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq and his cabinet from power. The support of the coup was carried out, using widespread bribery[1] in a covert operation by Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). According to a report on the BBC, Britain, motivated by its desire to control Iranian oil fields, contributed to funding for the widespread bribery of Iranian officials, news media and others. The project to overthrow Iran's government was codenamed Operation Ajax (officially TP-AJAX).[2] The coup re-installed Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in the primary position of power. In 2000, former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, during the administration of President Bill Clinton, called it a "setback for democratic government" in Iran.[3]" US law changed in the 80's, and such action has bneen illegal since. If we want to go back 54 years, why not update the reader on what happened since 1953? Much has changed, who reads a 1953 encyclopedia?

There is a policy for the opening summary, something about summarizing the rest of the article. Where in the article do these claims get discussed or supported?

What SPECIFIC human rights are being violated? May we edit these in - and what definition or source we are using to define these human rights? This is presently garbage, no one knows what it specifically means. Any objections to deletion? Does anyone want to edit the specifis in? I prefer deletion. Raggz (talk) 09:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: This is an important human rights document. The application of it within the US is by the US Judiciary or by the UN Security Council (article 39 of the UN Charter). This may be applied to the US, and no reliable source is required to suggest that it MAY be applied. What I am asking for is a reliable source that the UNSC has ACTUALLY applied it to the United States. Raggz (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)