UN renews US 'torture' criticism

[cal04]

Top UN human rights official Louise Arbour has repeated accusations made earlier this week that the US and other countries are easing curbs on torture. Ms Arbour told the BBC that governments had to clarify if they were holding prisoners in secret jails, without the freedom to communicate or be visited.

The US envoy to the UN has said Ms Arbour's comments are "inappropriate". Ms Arbour said she had a mandate to protect and defend human rights, and she would continue to do exactly that. She said she did not believe she needed to respond to US criticism of her comments. "I'm the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. This is what I do," she told the BBC.

Meeting with Rice
Ms Arbour said on Friday that she believed the US was among a group of countries "advocating an erosion of the total ban on torture". She said attempts to seek diplomatic assurances that suspects would not be tortured in countries to which they had been deported constituted "a departure from the total prohibition" on torture.

Ms Arbour, a former Canadian Supreme Court justice, told reporters in New York that the global ban on torture was becoming a casualty of the US-led "war on terror". She singled out the reported US policies of sending terror suspects to other countries and holding prisoners in secret detention. "Two phenomena today are having an acutely corrosive effect on the global ban on torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment," she said.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4514958.stm

[Psephos]

1. Hmmm. No mention of sex abuse by UN peacekeepers, though.

I could rattle off a lot more items on the UN hypocrisy list, too.

That's not to excuse the US; I'm not. What I am saying is that there's a price to paid in the future for talking out both sides of one's mouth, and it looks like the future is now.

Peace.

[Spazito]

3. Are the peacekeepers that are involved in sex abuse

Americans? Canadians? others? Please provide a link where it is reported: a) the sex abuse being perpetrated by peacekeepers and 2) where the UN has not acted upon such reports. It would be appreciated, thanks.

[Lerkfish]

4. whu=what?

incomprehensible post. What are you referring to, and how is it relevant?

If there were UN members screwing goats and then eating them, how does that affect that the US is guilty of torture and war crimes?

I reject your premise.

[Psephos]

5. Nothing incomprehensible in my post. If you have a different opinion, fine

When someone has a different opinion from me, I usually just call it a different opinion.

I also explicitly stated that the UN's dirty linen does not the excuse the US at all. Take a second reading if you missed that.

In my opinion, the UN's authority to lecture about abuse was compromised by the multiple recent instances of sex abuse committed under its authority by its peacekeepers in Congo and elsewhere. If you don't think those two are related then that's your worldview, not mine.

If you're saying you honestly know nothing about what went down in Congo then I leave it to you to Google for the details.

We on the left are especially quick to point out hypocrisy of those on the right, and to link disparate issues through the mechanism of implied moral authority to condemn. That's rightly so. However, that doesn't mean we should ignore hypocrisy on the left - if anything, we should be MORE vigilant against it, to preserve our own authority. To me that's the basis of a clear conscience. I'd rather we take care of our own, than wait for some wingnut to make a talking point out of it.

I accept that humans and human institutions make mistakes. I don't accept them trying to paper them over.

Peace.

[Spazito]

2. If Bolton thinks he can bully Louise Arbour, he needs to talk

to Milosevic who found out the hard way that she doesn't flinch. She was an EXCELLENT choice of the UN to be UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.