Obama Hauls Arizona Before the UN Human Rights Council

[TheRightsWriter.com]

by Ben Johnson


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4097/4901152181_99604fc4bd_m.jpg

Apparently Barack Obama is not content to make a federal case out of his immigration feud with Arizona; he just made it an international one.

The president's first-ever report on U.S. human rights to the UN Human Rights Council (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/146379.pdf) contains a rich vein of offensive material. So far, one aspect has not been reported: our petty president used the situation to bash Arizona's immigration law -- and possibly transfer jurisdiction over the law from Arizona to the UN. Throughout the report, which sounds like an Obama campaign speech, the president discusses "the original flaw" of the U.S. Constitution (http://therightswriter.com/2008/10/socialism-we-can-believe-in/), America's tolerance for slavery, and his version of our long and despicable history (http://therightswriter.com/2008/08/baracks-tragic-emphasis/) of discriminating against and oppressing minorities, women, homosexuals, and the handicapped. After each complaint, he addresses how he is delivering us from ourselves, patting himself on the back for such initiatives as ending "torture," promoting Affirmative Action, and passing health care legislation.

In his section on "Values and Immigration," he praised the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to provide better medical care for detainees and increase “Alternatives To Detention” (http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1254839781410.shtm) (e.g., letting them go). Then he turned to the one state that has had the temerity to stand in his way of fundamentally transforming the American electorate:


A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. 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.

On Obama’s command, Attorney General Eric Holder has sued the State of Arizona for passing a law that he criticized without reading, and which merely upholds federal law. (He gave sanctuary cities a pass (http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/obama-admin-says-they-will-sue-arizona-but-sanctuary-cities-are-officially-safe/).) He now threatens an additional lawsuit against Sheriff Joe Arpaio for “racial profiling” when arresting illegal immigrants near the Mexican border.

Obama’s turns his skirmish with Jan Brewer from a states rights dispute into an international human rights cause. It also places Arizona’s law in the hands of the United Nations (http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/beware-of-international-govt-granting-amnesty-to-illegals/).

The national report is but the first step of the international government’s review process. On November 5, the United States will be examined by a troika of UN bureaucrats from France, Japan, and Cameroon (an oppressive nation which is a member of the Organization of Islamic Conference (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/71514)). This trio will consider three items: Obama’s self-flagellating report, reports written about America by UN tribunals or international governing bodies, and testimony from NGOs with a pronounced anti-American bias. It will also consider “voluntary pledges and commitments made by the State,” such as suspending an Arizona state law.

Then the French, Japanese, and Cameroon diplomats will draw up a plan of action for the United States to implement.

Nations are re-examined every four years. The Human Rights Council looks for voluntary compliance. However, its website asserts (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/BasicFacts.aspx), “The Human Rights Council will decide on the measures it would need to take in case of persistent non-cooperation by a State with the” World Body.

When the Left cannot win at the ballot box (virtually every time), it overrules the people in the courts. Now that Obama is not sure he can prevail in the courts, he has overruled the American people by hauling Arizona and the two-thirds of Americans (http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/immigration-arizona-americans-support/2010/05/12/id/358850) who support its law before the United Nations.


Original source (http://www.impea
chobamacampaign.com/obama-hauls-arizona-before-the-un-human-rights-council/).

[Hraggleblarg]

How is this the UN's business? What in all hells is Obama thinking?

(Oh wait, he doesn't think.)

[Deinonychus]

Everything's the UN's business. Didn't you hear?

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Obama is one to talk since under his watch we have intensified our Predator Drone strikes in Pakistan. How many innocent brown people have been exterminated by his express approval? Not to defend Arizona's law (which I think just empowers the police-state that much more) but this is fucking ridiculous.

[Noob]

Arizona just should become an Independent Republic and tell the U.N. to piss off.

[Zippyjuan]

Does this mean Arizona might have to go to jail?

[bruce leeroy]

arizona should tell the UN, in the words of black bush
"sanction us, sanction us with your army.............oh, thats right, I forgot, youdont HAVE an army!!!!"

[Mini-Me]

Obama is one to talk since under his watch we have intensified our Predator Drone strikes in Pakistan. How many innocent brown people have been exterminated by his express approval? Not to defend Arizona's law (which I think just empowers the police-state that much more) but this is fucking ridiculous.

No kidding. I'm no fan of the law myself, but Obama's gall in bringing a US state before the UN Human Rights Council is totally unprecedented and outrageous. That alone should nail him and his handlers for treason.

[A Son of Liberty]

Arizona just should become an Independent Republic and tell the U.NS. to piss off.

Fixed.

[RedStripe]

it's like you guys didn't even read the article

Oh no! A human rights group is scrutinizing the US!

[jmdrake]

it's like you guys didn't even read the article

Oh no! A human rights group is scrutinizing the US!

It's like you don't know what the U.N. council on Human Rights is. :rolleyes: It's not just some "human rights group" like amnesty international. It has the power to recommend sanctions to the U.N. security council. Further I don't know of any case of any leader of any other country going to the U.N. and saying "My country is violating human rights". If Obama really believes that he should resign. (Actually he should resign regardless. I never thought I'd say this, but he's actually becoming worse than Bush. Up until this point I thought they were merely just as bad.)

[jmdrake]

Isn't this treason? Giving "aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States"? It's one thing to be critical of Arizona's law and deal with it internally. It's another thing to take it to an international body.

[YumYum]

What link was this pulled from? I can't find it on the U.S. Department of State web site.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/hr/unhrc/index.htm

[jmdrake]

What link was this pulled from? I can't find it on the U.S. Department of State web site.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/hr/unhrc/index.htm

Click on the "blue" text in the OP. Everything is linked.

[RedStripe]

It's like you don't know what the U.N. council on Human Rights is. :rolleyes: It's not just some "human rights group" like amnesty international. It has the power to recommend sanctions to the U.N. security council.

As if that's relevant, in any way, to the United States. :rolleyes:



Further I don't know of any case of any leader of any other country going to the U.N. and saying "My country is violating human rights".

So?



If Obama really believes that he should resign. (Actually he should resign regardless. I never thought I'd say this, but he's actually becoming worse than Bush. Up until this point I thought they were merely just as bad.)

Haha, so the that that Obama is suggesting that the US might be violating human rights makes him worse than Bush? What kind of retarded criteria are you using to justify that conclusion?

[j6p]

It's intresting lets not forget Bush's international election watchers.

[jmdrake]

As if that's relevant, in any way, to the United States. :rolleyes:

The U.S. is part of the U.N. :rolleyes: And as far as "relevance of the U.N." just ask Iraq. Sure we're strong enough to simply veto and/or ignore any sanctions, but that might not always be the case. We're going down fast.



So?


As head of a sovereign nation the U.S. president is supposed to solve domestic problems domestically and not try to internationalize them. If you don't understand that, you're in the wrong movement.



Haha, so the that that Obama is suggesting that the US might be violating human rights makes him worse than Bush? What kind of retarded criteria are you using to justify that conclusion?

1) Asking someone for ID is NOT a violation of "human rights" and never has been identified as such by any nation or international body.

2) Obama is engaging is REAL human rights violations (indefinite detention without charge, rendition of terror suspects to countries known to torture, drone bombing of targets that are known to be filled with innocent civilians in order to kill one or two insurgents etc.) For him to try to make the AZ law into a "human rights" issue is downright laughable.

3) As president of the United States (not the U.N.), it is his duty to represent the interests of the United States on the world stage. If there is a real human rights violation as president he should deal with it internally and not try to make it into an international issue. Yes. He is worse than Bush on this. And it takes "retarded logic" not to see that. You never saw Kennedy go to the U.N. to fight segregation.

[jmdrake]

It's intresting lets not forget Bush's international election watchers.

Bush brought in international election watchers to watch U.S. elections?

[YumYum]

Click on the "blue" text in the OP. Everything is linked.

All I get is this: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/146379.pdf

I want to see this paper on an official web page. Anybody could have written what the OP provided. It should be on the U.S. Department of State web site.

[jmdrake]

All I get is this: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/146379.pdf

I want to see this paper on an official web page. Anybody could have written what the OP provided. It should be on the U.S. Department of State web site.

I don't think you get it. What the OP provided was an attack on what Obama did. So of course it's not going to be on the state department's website any more than an ACLU attack on the Bush torture policy would have been on any official Bush administration website. Here's the link for the OP.

http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/obama-hauls-arizona-before-the-un-human-rights-council/

[YumYum]

I don't think you get it. What the OP provided was an attack on what Obama did. So of course it's not going to be on the state department's website any more than an ACLU attack on the Bush torture policy would have been on any official Bush administration website. Here's the link for the OP.

http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/obama-hauls-arizona-before-the-un-human-rights-council/

Where did the author of the article, Ben Johnson, get "Obama's first ever report to the UN"?

It should be somewhere on this web page: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/hr/unhrc/index.htm

The only place I could find it is here:http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/146379.pdf

[jmdrake]

Where did the author of the article, Ben Johnson, get "Obama's first ever report to the UN"?

It should be somewhere on this web page: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/hr/unhrc/index.htm

The only place I could find it is here:http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/146379.pdf

Ok. Now I have no idea what you're talking about. Both links that you've provided are from the same government website. Are you suggesting that because the document isn't on the "link page" it's somehow not authentic even though it's on the official website of the U.S. state department?

[Libertea Party]

The U.S. is part of the U.N. :rolleyes: And as far as "relevance of the U.N." just ask Iraq. Sure we're strong enough to simply veto and/or ignore any sanctions, but that might not always be the case. We're going down fast.

As head of a sovereign nation the U.S. president is supposed to solve domestic problems domestically and not try to internationalize them. If you don't understand that, you're in the wrong movement.

1) Asking someone for ID is NOT a violation of "human rights" and never has been identified as such by any nation or international body.

2) Obama is engaging is REAL human rights violations (indefinite detention without charge, rendition of terror suspects to countries known to torture, drone bombing of targets that are known to be filled with innocent civilians in order to kill one or two insurgents etc.) For him to try to make the AZ law into a "human rights" issue is downright laughable.

3) As president of the United States (not the U.N.), it is his duty to represent the interests of the United States on the world stage. If there is a real human rights violation as president he should deal with it internally and not try to make it into an international issue. Yes. He is worse than Bush on this. And it takes "retarded logic" not to see that. You never saw Kennedy go to the U.N. to fight segregation.

Unbelievable that Obama has done the impossible and put Paul supporters and the neocons together on a foreign policy issue but there you have it.

I love that people think that the body that elects Iran to the council of Women's Rights (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/29/elects-iran-commission-womens-rights/) should have the authority to sit in judgment of our laws.

[ChaosControl]

**** the UN and **** Obama. Damn traitor.
I disagree with Arizona's law and all, but going to the UN about it is ****ed up.

[Mini-Me]

The U.S. is part of the U.N. :rolleyes: And as far as "relevance of the U.N." just ask Iraq. Sure we're strong enough to simply veto and/or ignore any sanctions, but that might not always be the case. We're going down fast.



As head of a sovereign nation the U.S. president is supposed to solve domestic problems domestically and not try to internationalize them. If you don't understand that, you're in the wrong movement.



1) Asking someone for ID is NOT a violation of "human rights" and never has been identified as such by any nation or international body.

2) Obama is engaging is REAL human rights violations (indefinite detention without charge, rendition of terror suspects to countries known to torture, drone bombing of targets that are known to be filled with innocent civilians in order to kill one or two insurgents etc.) For him to try to make the AZ law into a "human rights" issue is downright laughable.

3) As president of the United States (not the U.N.), it is his duty to represent the interests of the United States on the world stage. If there is a real human rights violation as president he should deal with it internally and not try to make it into an international issue. Yes. He is worse than Bush on this. And it takes "retarded logic" not to see that. You never saw Kennedy go to the U.N. to fight segregation.

I would like to add that pretty much all of the countries "judging" the US from the UN have far worse track records when it comes to immigration and profiling.

France? Hello, has anyone noticed how France has been treating the Muslim issue?
Japan? Did everyone forget how Japan makes it practically impossible for outsiders to assimilate and become Japanese?
Cameroon? I'm not sure about how they treat immigrants in general, but here's some Wikipedia on Cameroon's everlasting devotion to human rights: "Human rights organisations accuse police and military forces of mistreating and even torturing criminal suspects, ethnic minorities, homosexuals, and political activists." (Yes, it's sourced, etc.) That sounds a step above and beyond what the US and the CIA have been doing...and for the record, that's something we've all been strongly opposing all along.

I disagree with the Arizona law and I think it is dangerous, but no reasonable person would consider any of these countries - or the UN - the be in any position to legitimately judge Arizona or the US on this particular issue, let alone recommend sanctions. From Obama's perspective and from the UN's perspective, this cannot possibly legitimately have anything to do with human rights! No, this is about two completely different things:
Obama, an egregious violator of real human rights (predator drones, continued war, torture, extraordinary rendition, indefinite detention without trial, citizen hit lists without trial, unlimited unwarranted domestic surveillance, etc.), is doing whatever he can to get his way. Considering he is taking a US state in front of an international body to obtain their intervention - which includes things like sanctions (which are an act of war) - it is very difficult to say that he is not committing treason here against his country (and I mean his country, not the government).
Moreover, the real issue isn't even about Arizona! The real issue here is finding an excuse to bring the United States under more centralized control by any means necessary! The Arizona law is nothing more than a convenient pretext, and it should be transparent to anyone here looking at the issue without partisan blinders on.

RedStripe, surely you see that international hegemonic control over all countries on earth - the conformist goal the establishment is pursuing with all these gradualist snares - is the single most dangerous threat to liberty on the planet? Centralization of power is and always has been the bane of our species. You are so intent on bashing right-libertarians here that you're falling back into the left-right paradigm, grasping at straws on this issue, and missing the bigger picture. Grab some smelling salts! We are not partisan neocons here with no concern for human rights, and you damn well know it. Please, stop trying to find fault with anyone here criticizing someone on the left, just because they're criticizing someone on the left. I sure as hell wouldn't make snide, sarcastic comments at you if Bush did this and you were lambasting him. No, I'd join you, and so would everyone else here, and you know it.

[amonasro]

So what's the UN gonna do? Impose sanctions on Arizona?

[RedStripe]

The U.S. is part of the U.N. :rolleyes: And as far as "relevance of the U.N." just ask Iraq. Sure we're strong enough to simply veto and/or ignore any sanctions, but that might not always be the case. We're going down fast.

Wow, you are honestly worried about sanctions being placed against the United States? Do you have any idea of how international power is structured?



As head of a sovereign nation the U.S. president is supposed to solve domestic problems domestically and not try to internationalize them. If you don't understand that, you're in the wrong movement.

He also has an obligation to follow the law, which includes US treaties which make us members of the United States. If you don't understand that, you're clearly in the right movement.

I personally don't give a damn if he follows the law or not, per se - I'm only interested in whether I support his actions on a case by case basis. And solid critique of the bullshit going on in the United States by a third party is sure as hell a good thing.

I mean, if Ron Paul were magically made president and he "committed treason" by ignoring/violating federal statutes I wouldn't care so long as he was fucking up the corporate status quo.


1) Asking someone for ID is NOT a violation of "human rights" and never has been identified as such by any nation or international body.

That's not what's at issue (except in the mind of those defending Arizona's crackdown). What's at issue is forcing police to harass people about their citizenship status merely because they have a "reasonable suspicion" that they are not in the country legally, which is basically just a go-ahead for racial profiling.

From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."

"All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."

"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile." (detaining someone further because they "look like an illegal" violates this, especially when (always) this suspicion is based largely on race).

"Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. ...
(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."


2) Obama is engaging is REAL human rights violations (indefinite detention without charge, rendition of terror suspects to countries known to torture, drone bombing of targets that are known to be filled with innocent civilians in order to kill one or two insurgents etc.) For him to try to make the AZ law into a "human rights" issue is downright laughable.

Right and that's a reason I support an international inquiry into human rights abuses by the US just as I would support the same for any other disgustingly barbaric and backwards nation.



3) As president of the United States (not the U.N.), it is his duty to represent the interests of the United States on the world stage. If there is a real human rights violation as president he should deal with it internally and not try to make it into an international issue. Yes. He is worse than Bush on this. And it takes "retarded logic" not to see that. You never saw Kennedy go to the U.N. to fight segregation.

Hahaha, sorry but this is just pathetic. What do you even think the "interests of the United States" are? Oh, do you believe in the fairy tale of some sort of unified national interests? Are you unaware that there are more conflicting interests between the social classes within the United States than there are between the government of the United States and it's contemporaries world wide? Looks like it.

[YumYum]

^^^^Good information. I find it interesting how the same people who criticize government get mad when the president does.

[Mini-Me]

^^^^Good information. I find it interesting how the same people who criticize government get mad when the president does.

Maybe it's because Obama is criticizing Arizona for offenses far less than his own, and not because he has a legitimate moral problem with them, but because he has an ulterior motive? :rolleyes: Furthermore, there's a huge line between criticizing a country and attempting to change it, and seeking to empower the United Nations over the US. The UN is a fledgling one-world government, and considering such centralization of power is an incomparable threat to liberty anywhere, empowering and legitimizing them is the very worst thing anyone could do in the long run. The big picture here is what's important, not this stupid Arizona issue.

[RedStripe]

I would like to add that pretty much all of the countries "judging" the US from the UN have far worse track records when it comes to "papieren," immigration, etc.

France? Hello, has anyone noticed how France has been treating the Muslim issue?
Japan? Did everyone forget how Japan makes it practically impossible for outsiders to assimilate and become Japanese?
Cameroon? I'm not sure about how they treat immigrants in general, but here's some Wikipedia on Cameroon's everlasting devotion to human rights: "Human rights organisations accuse police and military forces of mistreating and even torturing criminal suspects, ethnic minorities, homosexuals, and political activists." (Yes, it's sourced, etc.) That sounds a step above and beyond what the US and the CIA have been doing...and if you recall, that's something we've all been strongly opposing all along.

I disagree with the Arizona law and I think it is dangerous, but no reasonable person would consider any of these countries - or the UN - the be in any position to legitimately judge Arizona or the US on this particular issue, let alone recommend sanctions. From Obama's perspective and from the UN's perspective, this cannot possibly legitimately have anything to do with human rights! No, this is about two completely different things:
Obama, an egregious violator of real human rights (predator drones, continued war, torture, extraordinary rendition, indefinite detention without trial, citizen hit lists without trial, unlimited unwarranted domestic surveillance, etc.), is doing whatever he can to get his way. Considering he is taking a US state in front of an international body to obtain their intervention - which includes things like sanctions (which are an act of war) - it is very difficult to say that he is not committing treason here against his country (and I mean his country, not the government).
Moreover, the real issue isn't even about Arizona! The real issue here is finding an excuse to bring the United States under more centralized control by any means necessary! The Arizona law is nothing more than a convenient pretext, and it should be transparent to anyone here looking at the issue without partisan blinders on.

RedStripe, surely you see that international hegemonic control over all countries on earth - the conformist goal the establishment is pursuing with all these gradualist snares - is the single most dangerous threat to liberty on the planet? Centralization of power is and always has been the bane of our species. You are so intent on bashing right-libertarians here that you're falling back into the left-right paradigm, grasping at straws on this issue, and missing the bigger picture. Grab some smelling salts! We are not partisan neocons here with no concern for human rights, and you damn well know it. Please, stop trying to find fault with anyone here criticizing someone on the left, just because they're criticizing someone on the left. I sure as hell wouldn't make snide, sarcastic comments at you if Bush did this and you were lambasting him. No, I'd join you, and so would everyone else here, and you know it.

1. These "countries" aren't judging the US's horrendous human rights record, some powerless academics/bureaucrats who happen to represent them are. Believe it or not, the UN actually produces a lot of important data about human rights abuses. I can't wait to see what they say about our own domestic prison system which has to be one of the absolute worst in the world. Of course, only liberal academics will even talk about the report because the right wind automatically dismisses anything that the UN says (especially if it is actually critical of the US or Israel; Blame America First Crowd, etc).

2. Obama's doing this for his own political purposes (and mostly because it's a pretty routine aspect of UN membership - who's gonna turn down a third party review of their countries human rights record?), and also because these same liberal intellectuals expect him to and he has to appease his reluctant base. I mean, the real problem with these liberal intellectuals is the extent to which they buy into the conservative and neo-con arguments about American exceptionalism, the need to impose liberal (in the European sense) ideology on countries like Afghanistan, etc, which is why they are more apt to talk about overtly xenophobic and right-wing policies like the Arizona law than they are about drone attacks, torture, violation of basic due process, etc (which is actually worse, in my opinion).

3. The single most dangerous thing is not a world government. That project was actually abandoned quite explicitly a while ago. What's being implemented is a system of interconnected institutions which will affect a form of global governance that will certainly be implemented by willing nation-states. If we were in Ecuador or Bolivia, I might actually buy your argument, but we're in the United States which is the linchpin of the new corporate empire. Human rights commissions are the absolute last of our worries - I'd like to see a single example of how a human rights inquiry by the UN has actually had some terrible result (other than for some shitty third-world regime). The right-wing just shits its pants every time the UN does a single thing, despite the fact that, within the global governance scheme, it plays the role of US Congress: it supposedly "represents" the nations and makes decisions, but all the important policies are being set behind closed doors by things like the WTO, IMF, etc, which are absolutely DOMINATED by the United States and it's industrialized allies/satellite states. To use a metaphor that the right-wing might understand, these other organizations are more like the Fed. They control economic policy, which is basically more powerful than everything else combined. Running around crying about some inconsequential review of the US's human rights record is like worrying about whether Ron Paul voted to give Michael Jackson a congressional medal while the FOMC is doing its thing.

4. I challenge anyone who actually sees this as a "realistic" threat to American freedom to explain how it is. It's simply a delusion to thing that this is going to lead anywhere internationally. I mean, have you even fucking noticed what Israel gets away with? Jesus. The only reason they do is because the United States supports them.. and you think the United States is going to suffer a loss of power because of the Arizona Bill? It's just laughable.

[RedStripe]

Maybe it's because Obama is criticizing Arizona for offenses far less than his own, and not because he has a legitimate moral problem with them, but because he has an ulterior motive? :rolleyes:

Of course he has his own motives for criticizing government. Helloooooo have you listened to the Republican pundits lately? Everyone is willing to call out the BS when it's politically advantageous. I'm not even agreeing with Obama here - I'm just saying this isn't really anything to be afraid of or upset about.

Lots of people signed on to the Audit the Fed bill because people were pissed about the bailouts - not because they actually gave a damn about the Fed. That's not a reason to hope it doesn't pass (but it is a reason to be skeptical about voting for them).



Furthermore, there's a huge line between criticizing a country and attempting to change it, and seeking to empower the United Nations over the US. The UN is a fledgling one-world government, and considering such centralization of power is an incomparable threat to liberty anywhere, empowering and legitimizing them is the very worst thing anyone could do in the long run. The big picture here is what's important, not this stupid Arizona issue.

I mean, Israelis could make the exact same argument about UN inquiries/criticisms and even actions against Israel for their human rights abuses - would you buy your own argument if it was coming from an Israeli saying the same thing about their country?

[Deborah K]

This is creepy to me. This is a slippery slope. He is in essence relinquishing state sovereignty to the U.N.. This is one of the ways in which you slowly create global governance.

[jmdrake]

Wow, you are honestly worried about sanctions being placed against the United States? Do you have any idea of how international power is structured?


Wow. You honestly are not able to read? I said

but that might not always be the case. We're going down fast.

:rolleyes:



He also has an obligation to follow the law, which includes US treaties which make us members of the United States. If you don't understand that, you're clearly in the right movement.


Now you're just being ridiculous. WHAT U.S. TREATY HAS ARIZONA VIOLATED? Further the president enforcing U.S. treaty obligations has ALWAYS been done through the UNITED STATES legal system and not by going to the UNITED NATIONS! Goodness!



I personally don't give a damn if he follows the law or not, per se -


Well that's very telling. :rolleyes:



I'm only interested in whether I support his actions on a case by case basis. And solid critique of the bullshit going on in the United States by a third party is sure as hell a good thing.


You're ok with Obama violating human rights around the world as long as he attacks Arizona on the international stage for doing something that is not a violation of any treaty or a violation of human rights. Got it.



I mean, if Ron Paul were magically made president and he "committed treason" by ignoring/violating federal statutes I wouldn't care so long as he was fucking up the corporate status quo.


You want constitutionalist Ron Paul to turn his back on his entire political philosophy and violate the constitution as long as he does it in ways that make you feel good. Got it.




That's not what's at issue (except in the mind of those defending Arizona's crackdown). What's at issue is forcing police to harass people about their citizenship status merely because they have a "reasonable suspicion" that they are not in the country legally, which is basically just a go-ahead for racial profiling.


You think that asking people about their citizenship is a violation of human rights even though every European country does it. Got it. You are so ill informed about the law that you don't understand the term "reasonable suspicion" means the police are NOT forced to ask anybody about their citizenship status. (After all the officer can always say "I didn't suspect anything"). Got it. You are so ill informed that you don't realize someone can be against the Arizona law (like me) and yet still not think it rises to the level of a human rights violation.
Got it.



From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:


You know that's never been ratified by the U.S. senate right? No, probably you don't know that. Anyway....



"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."

"All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."


And the prohibition against being asked about citizenship is in there where exactly? :rolleyes: Note you the part that you did NOT bold. "Entitled to all of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration". Does the declaration include a right to violate some other nations borders? No? Then you've just proven yourself to be totally clueless!



"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile." (detaining someone further because they "look like an illegal" violates this, especially when (always) this suspicion is based largely on race).


Nobody is arrested because the "look like an illegal". There has to first be a "lawful contact" for some other reason. (Maybe you're like Eric Holder and you've never actually read the bill). If the police are driving down the street and see someone that "looks illegal" that is NOT a "lawful contact". Further after the lawful contact and the "reasonable suspicion" there still isn't an arrest. At that point the officer attempts to find out if immigration status. There's only an arrest if the suspect turns out to be illegal. Further both the Arizona statute and the current case law prohibits using race as a factor. I've actually read through much of the case law! You sir clearly have not. I did my reading in an attempt to argue against the Arizona law. In doing so I found out that myself (and people like you) were misinformed about the implications. I still don't like the law. But only someone who was uninformed (or willfully ignorant) would call it a human rights violation.



"Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. ...
(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."


:rolleyes: Nobody has said illegal immigrants can't return to their own country or that they should be deprived of their nationality.



Right and that's a reason I support an international inquiry into human rights abuses by the US just as I would support the same for any other disgustingly barbaric and backwards nation.


You are the one who is disgustingly barbaric and backwards. We solved the issue of segregation without an "international inquiry". You want to see the results of U.N. meddling? Look no further than Iraq. Maybe that's what you want the U.S. to turn into.



Hahaha, sorry but this is just pathetic. What do you even think the "interests of the United States" are?

One of those interests is maintaining national sovereignty. I don't want to become Iraq or the Balkans or the Korean penninsula or any other U.N. "client state".

[jmdrake]

I mean, Israelis could make the exact same argument about UN inquiries/criticisms and even actions against Israel for their human rights abuses - would you buy your own argument if it was coming from an Israeli saying the same thing about their country?

I talk to neocons you still justify Iraq based on the enforcement of the U.N. security council resolutions. Do you buy that argument? And if you think the Arizona law is in any equivalent to the killings of Palestinian civilians and the destruction of Palestinian homes in their own land then you owe the Palestinians an apology. Lastly, if the U.N. wants to do their stupid inquiry into the Arizona law, let them. Let them then do inquiries into similar European laws. But the president of the UNITED STATES should have NOTHING to do with it!

[jmdrake]

Unbelievable that Obama has done the impossible and put Paul supporters and the neocons together on a foreign policy issue but there you have it.

I love that people think that the body that elects Iran to the council of Women's Rights (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/29/elects-iran-commission-womens-rights/) should have the authority to sit in judgment of our laws.

Not totally unbelievable. We've always had a "fringe" that don't really support Ron Paul's principles, but liked him because he was "none of the above".

[Mini-Me]

3. The single most dangerous thing is not a world government. That project was actually abandoned quite explicitly a while ago. What's being implemented is a system of interconnected institutions which will affect a form of global governance that will certainly be implemented by willing nation-states. If we were in Ecuador or Bolivia, I might actually buy your argument, but we're in the United States which is the linchpin of the new corporate empire. Human rights commissions are the absolute last of our worries - I'd like to see a single example of how a human rights inquiry by the UN has actually had some terrible result (other than for some shitty third-world regime). The right-wing just shits its pants every time the UN does a single thing, despite the fact that, within the global governance scheme, it plays the role of US Congress: it supposedly "represents" the nations and makes decisions, but all the important policies are being set behind closed doors by things like the WTO, IMF, etc, which are absolutely DOMINATED by the United States and it's industrialized allies/satellite states. To use a metaphor that the right-wing might understand, these other organizations are more like the Fed. They control economic policy, which is basically more powerful than everything else combined. Running around crying about some inconsequential review of the US's human rights record is like worrying about whether Ron Paul voted to give Michael Jackson a congressional medal while the FOMC is doing its thing.
Plans for one world government were not abandoned, and if you think they were, you are not looking far enough ahead. These plans were merely postponed, because the actual system being built today is a much more achievable intermediate goal. Whether or not the overtly visible structure ever changes, this complicated system will only become further and further consolidated behind the scenes, over time. Greater centralization is just the natural progression of unchecked power. Furthermore, it doesn't matter to me that the US is mostly in charge of these international institutions; the issue I have is not with who is in charge, but the very fact that power is being further and further consolidated in the first place.


4. I challenge anyone who actually sees this as a "realistic" threat to American freedom to explain how it is. It's simply a delusion to thing that this is going to lead anywhere internationally. I mean, have you even fucking noticed what Israel gets away with? Jesus. The only reason they do is because the United States
supports them.. and you think the United States is going to suffer a loss of power because of the Arizona Bill? It's just laughable.

Do I think this particular review is actually going to result in sanctions or direct growth of the UN's power? No, I don't. However, what it does is it empowers and legitimizes the UN, because the President is saying he agrees that the UN has moral authority over the United States in the general sense. Over time, this can only lead to more and more "oversight" of US policy, followed gradually by creeping international regulation of US policy. Is the UN the executive body? No, it's more like Congress, as you said...a Congress where the actual people of the member countries have absolutely no representation whatsoever, where only the elites in charge of various governments are represented. It's not an executive body, but its role is to coordinate the institutions that are.

The other organizations you mentioned are the executive bodies, yes, but why would I CARE that the "United States" dominates those bodies? You said it yourself:

Oh, do you believe in the fairy tale of some sort of unified national interests? Are you unaware that there are more conflicting interests between the social classes within the United States than there are between the government of the United States and it's contemporaries world wide?
These institutions may technically be dominated by United States corporate and elite interests, but given they're dominated by corporate and elite interests at all, those interests may as well be Martian or Venusian, for all I care.

The point here is this: The more people consider the UN a moral authority, and the more the United States government legitimizes it as such, the less people will resist the UN and its sister organizations gradually regulating and later dictating policy from the top down (more and more overtly as time goes on). I recognize that the US government is already screwed up enough that "we the people" have almost zero voice in it, but people still believe that we do, and more importantly, people still believe that we should. People still believe that this is "our country" and that we are the arbiters of our destinies, not some elitist asshats. That gives us the ideological leverage we need to actually take control back from the bottom, and the US government is still structured in such a way that we possibly can; international governing bodies are not. If we yield to the principle that the UN's top-down moral authority over the US government supercedes that of US citizens (or that the UN has any authority over individual countries whatsoever), we have given globalist tyrants the very excuse they need to morally justify taking more and more power farther and farther away from the hands of the people and into more and more international bodies.

Again, this is about the big picture.

[Lord Xar]

^^^^Good information. I find it interesting how the same people who criticize government get mad when the president does.

The majority of arizonians support the legislation. The majority of americans support the legislation. Who is Obama criticizing and why go to the UN? - So they can issue some sort of "racist arizona diatribe" as if the UN holds some legitimate legal recourse over a state in the Union? - coming on the heels of 13 or so other states are considering like legislation.

[Lord Xar]

plans for one world government were not abandoned, ..........

+1000000000

[jmdrake]

^^^^Good information. I find it interesting how the same people who criticize government get mad when the president does.

I have no problem with the president criticizing Arizona. I have a problem with the president going to the UNITED NATIONS to criticize Arizona! It's this little thing called "national sovereignty".

[Dr.3D]

I can only suggest Obama read the U.S. Constitution and reflect on the oath of office he had to recite twice because he and his handlers screwed it up the first time around. Apparently he figures taking that oath was just a formality.

Just how is going to an outside council, protecting and defending the constitution of the United States? Does this man have any idea what national sovereignty is?

[driege]

That article is full of crap. If it were true, I'd be as pissed off as the rest of you guys, but let's save our anger for things that are actually true.

Obama is not bringing Arizona's law before the UN for any sort of action. The report is basically just a summary of all the things going on in our country. There is only one mention of Arizona in the report (paragraph 95), and it says:

"95. A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. 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. "

Like I said, let's save our outrage for when it's actually needed so that people take us seriously.

[Mini-Me]

That article is full of crap. If it were true, I'd be as pissed off as the rest of you guys, but let's save our anger for things that are actually true.

Obama is not bringing Arizona's law before the UN for any sort of action. The report is basically just a summary of all the things going on in our country. There is only one mention of Arizona in the report (paragraph 95), and it says:

"95. A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. 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. "

Like I said, let's save our outrage for when it's actually needed so that people take us seriously.

In that case, I'm glad we were misled (as opposed to the article having been accurate)...