Jump to content

Talk:Human rights in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 00:27, 27 May 2017 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Human rights in the United States/Archive 19) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


United Nations General Assembly

The lead claims "... and in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has not fully expanded complete rights to all human beings within its borders as compared to the international standard set by the United Nations General Assembly, because of social and political issues that stem from the history of the United States...

Support is required for the assertion that the United Nations General Assembly has any authority to set any standard of any kind. The UN Charter reserves this to the [[UN Security Council].

Support is also required that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not fully expanded complete rights to all human beings within its borders.

Article 13. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.: (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15. (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. 

Raggz (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legality of waterboarding

Following the deletion by User:ScrapironIV of the sentence "After World War II, an "International Military Tribunal for the Far East" was set up to prosecute Japanese soldiers charged with torture. A number of the Japanese soldiers convicted by American judges were hanged, while others received lengthy prison sentences or time in labor camps" because it allegedly dre a parallel between American misconduct and Japanese atrocities, I propose to replace it by "According to Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, "Waterboarding is broadly seen by legal experts around the world as torture, and it is universally prosecutable as a crime." which is cited in the Washington Post. This has the advantage of avoiding any mention of the Japanese, while still reporting the point of view that waterboarding is illegal. If no one objects, I will proceed to make the edit. Againstdisinformation (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might wait to see if someone actually objects, if that is your stated intention. There is more than enough content from HRW, and their view has been given more than enough weight. The quote specifies "universally" which would indicate that there is no disagreement. There IS disagreement, and it is not universally prosecutable. The quote is inherently flawed. Scr★pIronIV 20:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ScrapIronIV: Sorry I didn't see your objection, but you need not be so aggressive, you don't own Wikipedia. So, if you don't agree, let us calmly go to Dispute Resolution. Againstdisinformation (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You keep claiming that I am aggressive; I don't think you know what that word means. Personally, I find your pinnipedian tactics to be passive aggressive. So, we agree that neither of us is a perfect social animal. As for DRN, it is a bit premature. And no, I don't own Wikipedia. Netiher does Human Rights Watch. As I stated, the quote is inherently flawed, and more than enough weight has been given to HRW's opinion on the matter. Find a better quote from a different organization. Scr★pIronIV
The fact remains, there is international consensus that waterboarding is torture. During the Bush administration, bureaucrats attempted to redefine torture to allow waterboarding, and historians have noted this disregard for the rule of law in reliable sources. There really needs to be zero equivocation on this point. Viriditas (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ScrapIronIV: I don't know exactly what you are trying to insinuate with your epithet "pinnipedian" but I have a misgiving that it is not very flattering. First you objected to any reference to the Japanese lest, God forbid, a parallel might be drawn with the US military. I obliged and let you erase the whole paragraph, even though the source was impeccable. Now you protest that undue weight is given to HRW. What will it be next? In fact, you seem hellbent on defending waterboarding. If this is the case, and not to sound "pinnipedian", I will tell you outright that I find this disgusting. Now, I am not going to look for other references just because you say so. Againstdisinformation (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Human Rights Watch is a fairly well respected organization, which, if anything, has been accused of a pro-Western, pro-capitalist bias. http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/14/the-bias-of-human-rights-watch/ But just as a reality check, Amnesty International also considers waterboarding to be torture https://www.amnestyusa.org/news/multimedia/waterboarding-is-torture . Can ScrapIronIV supply a ref of a human rights organization that says waterboarding is acceptable in some situations? Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"After World War II, an "International Military Tribunal for the Far East" was set up to prosecute Japanese soldiers charged with torture certainly requires support because none were charged with torture, only mass murder. A reliable source is required to make the claim that torture was charged. Raggz (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Human rights in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Human rights in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human rights in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States&oldid=782450722"