U.S. tries to block UN anti-torture vote

July 24, 2002 3:10 PM

U.S. tries to block UN anti-torture vote "Concerned about the possibility of independent visits to U.S. civilian and military prisons, the United States sought Wednesday to block a vote on a U.N. plan meant to enforce a convention on torture. "
posted by Stuart_R (19 comments total)

Dude, didn't you get the memo?

It's not torture when the US commits it.

Dictionaries are now being updated.
posted by xmutex at 3:15 PM on July 24, 2002

Hmm...torture. I wonder what my odds are?
posted by Kikkoman at 3:32 PM on July 24, 2002

...conservative Muslim states that shun outside intervention are likely to back the U.S. request...
posted by signal at 3:55 PM on July 24, 2002

Well, damn, there goes my Saturday night!
posted by luriete at 4:43 PM on July 24, 2002

nice. i get more proud of our public servants by the minute!
posted by specialk420 at 7:15 PM on July 24, 2002

Could someone remind me again which countries are considered "rogue states" and how we don't fit that definition? Just wondering...
posted by drywall at 7:25 PM on July 24, 2002

Damn that Constitution, getting in the way again!

I say we just burn the damn thing and turn the whole country over to Koffi.

Every time this comes up it is pointed out that the US Constitution does not allow any outside power to have jurisdiction over the US.

Like clockwork the hand-ringers and people who live to point out the terrible things the US does overlook this VERY IMPORTANT FACT.

So either come out against the US Constitution or stop losing sleep over the fact that the US delegation is doing exactly what it is required to do by law.
posted by Mick at 7:32 PM on July 24, 2002

My hand--it keeps ringing. Should I answer it? Whoa, what was I smokin'?
posted by y2karl at 8:34 PM on July 24, 2002

I'm sure most countries have their own version of "the constitution". To be considered a seperate country (as opposed to simply a cultural region) they also maintain jurisdiction over their own lands and people. This is not a unique quality of America. Being an independent nation doesn't prevent countries from co-operating with one another, and agreeing on numerous international laws. (Geneva Convention, International Copyright Laws etc.)

Isn't the reasoning for the impending invasion of Iraq that they won't allow UN inspectors in? I wonder what Iraq's constitution (or whatever similar document they might have) says about allowing an outside power jurisdiction over Iraq.
posted by Stuart_R at 9:24 PM on July 24, 2002

suddenly the line goes dead.
posted by johnnyboy at 3:57 AM on July 25, 2002

U.S. to Iran: Allow the U.N.-backed inspections or else ...

U.S. to the rest of the world: U.N.-backed whaaaat?
posted by magullo at 5:12 AM on July 25, 2002

U.S. to Iran:

...whaaaat?
posted by y2karl at 7:13 AM on July 25, 2002

I'm sure most countries have their own version of "the constitution".
I have been under the impression that most countries do not have anything like our Constitution, certainly not most of Europe. The fact that European countries are flexible enough to join these organizations without much fuss shows that there is no guarantee of sovereignty that the people can point to to complain about the erosion of rights. The US is capable of cooperating, but our representatives are only authorized to go so far. I have no problem barring International agents from visit to US prisons, as they have absolutely no business doing so, and no one in my government has the power to authorize it without much discussion and voting.
posted by thirteen at 9:52 AM on July 25, 2002

I have been under the impression that most countries do not have anything like our Constitution, certainly not most of Europe.
you, are wrong. Very wrong.

The fact that European countries are flexible enough to join these organizations without much fuss shows that there is no guarantee of sovereignty that the people can point to to complain about the erosion of rights.

Actually it shows that the people are less paranoid and that they recognize that human rights should be adhered to universally.

I have no problem barring International agents from visit to US prisons, as they have absolutely no business doing so

So you don't believe in universal human rights? I presume that the other countries that voted against this (i.e. Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iraq etc.) share your assumption about absolute sovereignty.
posted by talos at 10:53 AM on July 25, 2002

I'd say the recent brouhaha over nazi auctions shows pretty clearly the dichotomy between US and Euro ideas of sovreignty.

And I'm not sure, talos, how you extrapolate a disbelief in universal human rights from a desire to retain some control over who exactly is in charge.
There's already far too great a distance between the hoi polloi and the ruling bodies. Stacking on another layer of bureaucracy doesn't solve anyting.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:20 AM on July 25, 2002

you, are wrong. Very wrong.
A cursory glance at your links does suggest I was wrong to say "anything like", but my basic point that they are much weaker documents is not wrong. My government cannot operate outside the guidelines in our document. If you think the constitutions provide the same guarantees that the US constitution does, then you are the one who is wrong.

Actually it shows that the people are less paranoid and that they recognize that human rights should be adhered to universally.
Some of the people maybe, those who do not agree with that position are just out of luck I suppose. You can have your universal human rights, I am pretty happy if I can get my government to adhere to the rights laid out in my construction once, which is actually one of my rights. A right that you would see violated.

So you don't believe in universal human rights? I presume that the other countries that voted against this (i.e. Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iraq etc.) share your assumption about absolute sovereignty.
I suppose so, but for very different reasons I would imagine. Hitler was a vegetarian, what are you trying to say? Actually, I know what you are trying to say, and it is a dull argument. I guess you think I should feel bad about my position, but I really do believe that the US should be absolutely, and completely sovereign within our boundaries.. I believe other countries should be the same, and have no interest in having my country interfere with your business. The fact that my country has a poor record of minding it's own business is no excuse to betray our ideals even further.
posted by thirteen at 11:34 AM on July 25, 2002

That ended up a little garbled for some reason. Oh well.
posted by thirteen at 11:40 AM on July 25, 2002

My government cannot operate outside the guidelines in our document.

Mine can't either. Really. But there is nothing in my constitution (and I do suspect that there is nothing in yours) that prohibits my government from signing international treaties and agreeing to their implementation.
From the linked article: "...the objective of the protocol is "to establish a system of regular visits undertaken by independent and national bodies to places where people are deprived of their liberty, in order to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment." So you do not have a case of some international body trying to legislate US law, but rather a team of inspectors checking to see if the US is implementing a treaty that it has already signed (and which therefore is, constitutionally, part of US law, if I'm not gravely mistaken).
As for the "universal human rights" part, I went off in the wrong direction there and I apologize: my point was simply that by its use of the "sovereignty" argument (which is misleading IMHO), the US legitimizes similar arguments from countries that have a *lot* to hide. Although frankly after Guantanamo I fear that the US might have quite a bit to hide as well.
And sonofsamian: There's already far too great a distance between the hoi polloi and the ruling bodies. Stacking on another layer of bureaucracy doesn't solve anything. Although I agree with you about the distance of the elites from "ordinary" citizens, I can hardly imagine how an inspection team for torture violations can further undermine participatory democracy. Also I do not think that all regulatory bodies can be dismissed as plain "bureaucracy".
posted by talos at 2:05 AM on July 26, 2002

But there is nothing in my constitution (and I do suspect that there is nothing in yours) that prohibits my government from signing international treaties and agreeing to their implementation.
Actually there is, it is called Article VI otherwise known as the sovereignty Clause. It does not actually forbid signing treaties, but any treaties signed would be binding to all states, and no treaties signed could give away any other right also spelled out in the constitution without an amendment to the constitution. Someone could sign on, but they would be in the wrong, and it would not stand very long. The US Constitution is pretty different from the European documents linked yesterday, and my government is not nearly so free to act as theirs might be.

but rather a team of inspectors checking to see if the US is implementing a treaty that it has already signed (and which therefore is, constitutionally, part of US law, if I'm not gravely mistaken).
Except that they legally cannot sign onto the treaty without changing the document, which there is no will to do.

It could be there is wiggle room, seeing as how I cannot figure out why it is legal for US armed forces to serve under UN commanders, but I think such things are underhanded and have corruption at the core.

the US legitimizes similar arguments from countries that have a *lot* to hide.
That is not our responsibility. The US government is supposed to serve US citizens, not international organizations. There is nothing your inspectors can do that an Independent US body could not. And even if International inspectors found something amiss, they would have no authority here.

Also I do not think that all regulatory bodies can be dismissed as plain "bureaucracy".

Everyone has an opinion.
posted by thirteen at 8:37 AM on July 26, 2002