digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at humanrights-geneva.info

US quits Human Rights Council | HRTribune

humanrights-geneva.info — ne - The news that the US has completely withdrawn from the Human Rights Council spread like wildfire Friday afternoon (June 6) through the corridors of the Palais des Nations in Geneva. There was general consternation amongst diplomats and NGOS

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • yellowcakewalk, on 06/07/2008, -61/+471The USA is officially a rogue state. Not the people, mind you, but the criminals that have hijacked our government.
    • dinostabOMG, on 06/07/2008, -9/+24Unlike the fiendish people of other rogue states? Not that I disagree.
      • ubuwalker31, on 06/07/2008, -13/+22The funny thing is, that the UN HRC is made up of rogue states! Angola, China, Egypt, Indonesia, Mexico, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia among others have hijacked the Human Rights Counsel. In 2003, Libya chaired the UN HRC!

        So, its not a surprise that Israel was routinely and strongly condemned by the group, but serious human rights violations in other countries, including Sudan, Burma, and Zimbabwe were ignored or played down.

        The UN HRC has no legitimacy, and is an institution not deserving of US support. End of Story.

        • qwertydvorak, on 06/07/2008, -2/+14FTA: "? It is like those who say, ‘I don’t like the way this town is governed so I’m not going to vote’"

          no, it is like saying, "I don't like the way this town is governed so I'm leaving town."

          two totally different things.
    • rodgerse, on 06/07/2008, -43/+12quit spewing that BS...you take responsiblity for your government like any other nation...but I wouldn't even say the people are that much better anyway...
      • gimpbully, on 06/07/2008, -0/+16I'll take responsibility for what I did. Not voting for bush
      • alpha88, on 06/08/2008, -0/+11If he didn't vote for Bush, he can complain all he wants. It's not his fault over 50% of your population was stupid enough to elect him twice.
        • theaceoffire, on 06/08/2008, -0/+2I voted for bush the first time (sorry), but not the second.

          Not that it helped us escape him though.
        • MonexFRAUD, on 09/17/2008, -0/+0You should probably think about investing in gold and silver in these troubled times. Gold and silver can be a good hedge against economic volatility as long as you're not doing a leveraged trade. You may wish to invest in the gold ETF (GLD) or the silver ETF (SLV) in a non-margin account. This is the least expensive way to invest. If you feel a need to to take delivery of your metals be extra cautious about who you buy from. Check the Better Business Bureau for complaints, ratings, and adviseries. Also check RipoffReport.com for complaints and read how or if they were handled. At http://www.monexfraud.com all the information you need about Monex Deposit Company is conveniently gathered in one place. Monex is the worst company you can buy precious metals from so do yourself a favor and don't do it. Go to http://www.monexfraud.com and you'll see what I mean!
      • VinceNoir, on 06/08/2008, -0/+10I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 or 2004. I've protested the unjust actions of the administration. I've blogged furiously in opposition of the state. I've donated to political causes that support sane progressive views instead of aggression and the spread of lunacy and evil. The only thing I haven't done (because I can't afford to) is leave this country. Do you dare to tell me that I'm not taking personal responsibility for my government Mr. Troll?
    • solarisom, on 06/07/2008, -10/+24How can you say that when the person we elected in 2000 wasn't George W. Bush?
      • miket, on 06/07/2008, -27/+5yes it was
        • Abomonog, on 06/07/2008, -4/+24No, it wasn't. Bush got the presidency by a judicial fiat that tossed the election results in the trash and gave it to him because his younger brother (Jeb Bush) was signing said judges paychecks.
        • facelesscoward, on 06/07/2008, -0/+8Actually, I do believe it was the Supreme Court of the country that tossed the election results in the trash. The Florida Supreme Court ruled mostly in Gore's favor, if I remember correctly.
    • Aero347, on 06/07/2008, -3/+21Thats just the thing, they know you'll just blog about it and go to 7 eleven for a slurpee to calm yourself down. I'd say the citizens are the ones that let them do these things and don't want to rock the boat. They are responsible in the way they've just complained hoping that bush will just feel bad and change his mind instead of kicking his ass out of office with FORCE.
      • pegothejerk, on 06/07/2008, -1/+9if by rock the boat you mean go to jail, then yeah. fear tactics are working.
      • sooch, on 06/07/2008, -4/+1what am I supposed to do, call my local congressman? give me a ***** break. it's already too late.
        • carpespasm, on 06/08/2008, -0/+6ANY time I've ever tried to contact my elected representatives to express my own and others sentiments that our government has done things which for the sake of our security, liberty, and freedom has detrimented those three things, and that many of the things the federal executive branch has done in the last 8 years has been unconstitutional at best and treasonous at the worst my sentiments, whether by call, written, typed, or email have fallen on the deaf ears of form replies and being politely told that the matters I'm expressing are of importance, which is why I'm disregarded. "Yep, those are important things, now ***** off" isn't a good way to get a vote but my sentiments aren't in the majority 'round these parts.
        • lisaawesome, on 06/08/2008, -0/+4That is exactly why people think they can't make any difference carpespasm. I've received the same ***** responses from both my local and national representatives and it is frustrating. I'm tired of form letters saying "that's great what you think but here's how I'm going to vote and I won't address the reasons you have given me to change my vote." I used to write polite little questions on my state congressman's myspace/facebook (yes he has both of those) and I would write him letters and e-mails explaining things how I saw them as his constituent and the more he flat out ignored me (didn't even get an autoreply or form letter) the more angry I became. I was going to run against him in the upcoming election but discovered I was ineligible by a single month of voter registration. So now since I have absolutely nothing to lose I send him some of the angriest letters ever written. I don't give a ***** if he reads them he has thoroughly pissed me off and I'm done playing nice. When this man has his next speaking event he better know it's on. I want answers and I will not shut the ***** up until I get some. I am his constituent and I deserve to be heard and treated with respect. I'll wrap this rant up and just say don't let those ***** run over you. Get mad and let them know it. They can't hide forever and in my case they only live a few miles from me.
        • ultragush, on 06/08/2008, -0/+0bravo, bravissimo... this is the mentality that we should all adopt.
      • GorfTron, on 06/08/2008, -2/+1I went to 7-11 for a slurpee and a calmdown. All I got was a severe brainfreeze. Human rights issues can really be a pain. Then I bought some Choc-O-Bliss cakes and played the Rastan game. Oh 7-11, is there anything you can't do?
    • Naieve, on 06/07/2008, -7/+32Wiki quote of Bush... Agree with him or not, the fact is the HRC has consistently ignored some of the worst perpetrators.

      "Addressing the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2007, U.S. President George W. Bush highlighted points such as "dictatorship... [in] Belarus, North Korea, Syria, and Iran, brutal regimes deny their people the fundamental rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration," "the situation in Burma, where a military junta has imposed a 19-year reign of fear. Basic freedoms of speech, assembly, and worship are severely restricted. Ethnic minorities are persecuted. Forced child labor, human trafficking, and rape are common. ... In Cuba, the long rule of a cruel dictator is nearing its end. ... In Zimbabwe, ordinary citizens suffer under a tyrannical regime. ... In Sudan, innocent civilians are suffering repression – and in the Darfur region, many are losing their lives to genocide."
      The president added: "The goals I've outlined today cannot be achieved overnight – and they cannot be achieved without reform in this vital institution. The United States is committed to a strong and vibrant United Nations. Yet the American people are disappointed by the failures of the Human Rights Council. This body has been silent on repression by regimes from Havana to Caracas to Pyongyang and Tehran – while focusing its criticism excessively on Israel. To be credible on human rights in the world, the United Nations must reform its own Human Rights Council."[28]"

      Don't agree with Bush if you want, this is merely why he quit the HRC. Go look at the HRC's track record.

      The part of the article below I find funny is right here, they basically are saying this wasn't a problem before 9/11. Yeah right. Step backwards? These people didn't step backwards, they never moved.

      "Ever since September 11, 2001, the US has constantly interpreted international standards in an “ a la carte” manner that has eroded human rights. Its behaviour has served as an example to a stream of states, including Pakistan, Egypt and other, who are not embarrassed to review human rights standards on homosexuality, abortion, capital punishment. It is a step backwards.”


      • stretch611, on 06/07/2008, -9/+9Bush quit the HRC because they (rightfully) criticized him.
        • Naieve, on 06/07/2008, -10/+9No, actually because they kept condemning Israel.

          /cue anti-semitic rant by some idiot
        • Someldiot, on 06/08/2008, -5/+0There are many legitimate reasons to hate the Jews, and anyone who disagrees with me is simply closed-minded:

          *The Communist Jews are an evil race.
          *Jews are greedy.
          *The Jews stole Palestine from the Muslims, and of course Churchill's quote applies nicely here: "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons," the relevance of course being that Hitler/Communists are worse than the Devil/Terrorists.
          *Israel steals monies from Starbucks and the United States, resulting in higher taxes and less green tea frappuchinos.
          *The Jews are taking away all of the jobs that should be reserved for Christians.
          *And of course the classic: http://digg.com/linux_unix/Linux_users_are_Jews
      • Skywise, on 06/07/2008, -5/+4That's too much truthiness for Yellowcakewalk...
      • 4321234, on 06/07/2008, -4/+2Then he passed Condi a note asking if he could go to the bathroom.
      • gimpbully, on 06/07/2008, -6/+8Do you honestly think any of that speech was written by him? Do you really think the president has a solid grasp of any of the human rights violations he outlined?
        • alpha88, on 06/08/2008, -2/+4I don't know why you're being buried, you're completely right. Bush doesn't even have an understanding of the English language, never mind anything with any complexity, or anything happening in other countries.

          He has speech writers like any other world leader, the only difference is that he has no idea what he's memorizing and then saying.
      • Rabbittt, on 06/07/2008, -8/+4When fighting something like Human Rights Abuse, you have to start from the top down.. You can't start from the bottom and go up, or from the middle and go up, because it lets those at the top continue without consequence..

        You MUST attack the top, the head, with most, if not all, of your force.. Then, when the top is pushed to the middle, you start at the top again, over and over, until the whole collective thing is perpetually downgraded..

        America whining because it is getting picked on, and then pointing fingers at other people, is not only childish and immature, it's insulting to the intelligence of the average person..

        America is the MOST POWERFUL nation on Earth.. Of course we will be a target, of course we will be singled out.. WE'RE THE BIGGEST BADDEST THING ON THE BLOCK..

        • Farnn, on 06/08/2008, -1/+3I would say its just the opposite. When combating human rights abuses you should begin with the worst offenders because those under them are suffering the most. Being killed for opposing the government, having your women raped and your children enslaved is far worse than your government tapping your phones or arresting you on dubious charges. A group has no ground to stand on when they combat much more minor and infrequent human rights abuses and ignore the most serious ones.
        • Bith8654, on 06/08/2008, -1/+3So your suggesting we slowly but surely perfect each country one by one into a virtual utopia for human rights starting with the most MINOR offenders? Sorry but if we go that route by the time we get to Darfur or other major offenders everyone will already be dead.
      • s2ao, on 06/07/2008, -3/+5But Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel have glowing human rights records...that's why they are among the USA's best friends.

        China also has an impeccable HR record, otherwise the US would boycott them and not trade so much with them.

        Also, the US doensn't need any guidance on human rights, they are already so good at it. They never torture anyone or hold them without trial, do they?
      • lazerflesh, on 06/08/2008, -1/+1There is no ***** "he" you *****. That's why so many people are so upset. Our ***** of a president needs to stop acting like a ***** dictator and listen to the will of the people.
      • nagual678, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1"The United States is committed to a strong and vibrant United Nations. Yet the American people are disappointed by the failures of the Human Rights Council."

        What the hell ? What about the USA ignoring the UN's recommendations about Iraq ? So the USA is committed to a "strong and vibrant UN" as long as they don't impede with their policy ? Give me a ***** break.
    • MxM111, on 06/07/2008, -3/+7I just can't believe that we did that!
      Wait, with this administration, I guess I can!
      • Barackalypse, on 06/07/2008, -0/+7Has the HRC censured the Sudan for its campaign of genocide in Darfur? How about the recent violence against monks and protesters in both Burma and Tibet? Maybe we should say something about the crimes of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. You show me where the HRC has addressed these issues and maybe then you'll have established a reason for the US to participate in this sham.
        • Naieve, on 06/07/2008, -1/+6Barackalypse,

          This story's comments outline why I believe most of the world are ignorant fools.

          They don't even take 5 minutes to read a quick summary of the HRC and it's predecessor.

          They don't care about the truth, they have their own little realities and thats where they are going to live, regardless of the facts.
        • Barackalypse, on 06/07/2008, -0/+7Actually, I looked it up: The HRC's answer to 200,000 murdered civilians in the Sudan is this strongly worded statement,
          "Expresses its deep concern at the seriousness of the ongoing violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in some parts of Darfur, and reiterates its call to all parties to put an end to all acts of violence against civilians..."
          There you have it, their concern is deep, meanwhile the bodies continue to pile up.
          http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/doc ...
    • ACiDGRiM, on 06/07/2008, -1/+14Its funny that you say that, because many of the other countries on that council are known human rights violators. The whole UN is a load of *****, and we still pay all their bills
      • bdbr, on 06/08/2008, -1/+6Well to be fair, we don't pay ALL their bills. Just way more than anyone else.
        United States 22.00%
        Japan 16.624%
        Germany 8.66%
        United Kingdom 6.13%
        France 6.03%
        Italy 4.89%
        Canada 2.81%
        Spain 2.52%
        China 2.667%
        Mexico 1.88%
        • cyberdork, on 06/08/2008, -0/+3Now consider what each country pays per capita....
    • trevor98, on 06/07/2008, -4/+9So, you feel that the US government no longer represents the people and no longer protects their inalienable right? Then you have a duty to revolt. Shut up or put up. Merely ranting on the internet is cheap.
      • wacomwacoff, on 06/07/2008, -1/+7The smartest way to revolt is to spread knowledge and vote for people who will change things.
        • ultragush, on 06/08/2008, -1/+1haha vote... yeah. "change"... but lol vote. obama is backed by MSM, he's an "approved candidate" just like bush was.
      • bdbr, on 06/08/2008, -1/+2In a few more months it won't matter if Bush represents the people.
    • doople, on 06/07/2008, -4/+8I feel obligated to point out that half the damn country voted for Bush, twice. You can argue about districting and the electoral college and corrupt votes and Bush losing the popular vote, but reality is a ton of people in this nation are happy with him. Please don't act like Bush took the government. He was carried there on the shoulders of uneducated people who put god, guns and abortion at the top of their voting priorities.
      • gimpbully, on 06/07/2008, -1/+2i think happy is a stretch. Further, I don't think is was a satisfaction with him or his administration that lead to the votes. These things tend to come down to fear in situations like this. I don't think it's fair to blame people for the votes, people are easily disuaded by fear of manufactured enemies.
      • bdbr, on 06/08/2008, -1/+1We all know the percentages who are happy with Bush are damned small. I really don't know what they expected when they voted that corrupt bunch back in, but they're not happy now.

        As long as we have Republicans in the executive office, we can expect that there will be vague "terror alerts" every autumn just before an election.
    • thereisnostate, on 06/08/2008, -1/+3and the millions of Americans who voted for them twice.
    • jimmiss, on 06/08/2008, -3/+5Well, overthrow your government or the rest of the world is gonna do it for you in about 25 years. Something tells me you won't like being 'Democratized' even though you perfected the art.
      • mbmiles88, on 06/08/2008, -8/+1I don't think you understand....we are the United States of America and your lucky we're so nice to you people... we could eliminate your country with the push of a button
        • tama00, on 06/08/2008, -0/+3With comments like this, i can see your governments views represent America accurately.
        • sandman979, on 06/08/2008, -0/+4No it doesn't. mbmiles just belongs to the surplus of moronic brainwashed assholes we have in USA.
        • kuzotz, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1tama there are over 300 million americans.mb's videos doesn't represent *****. His views show the ***** crazy 5% that choose to form militias in the piss middle of nowhere.
        • mbmiles88, on 06/10/2008, -0/+0Actually my views represent the majority of people who voted for Bush twice. The elections prove everything, so those of you who whine about the president not representing the majority...if he keeps getting elected then most people must agree with what he's doing.
      • Naieve, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Way late on this comment, but come on over and try it jimmiss.

        When the end of it comes around, it will once again be us democratizing your country.
  • 911ArtStudent, on 06/07/2008, -24/+123FTA: "The working group against arbitrary detention gave up going to Guantanamo last month because Washington would not allow its members to have face to face meetings with detainees. For its part, the Rapporteur against racism, Doudou Diene, has fought for years to be able to pay a visit and only recently got permission."

    It probably got to the point where the US could no longer remain a member in good standing, so the US may have quit while it was ahead
    • Naieve, on 06/07/2008, -13/+7No, actually it was because the HRC spent all of it's time focusing on Israel while ignoring places like Burma, Sudan, etc...

      Israel is a problem spot for sure, but there are alot of problems in this world and they basically spent most of it on Israel. I wonder why.
      • Abomonog, on 06/07/2008, -4/+14The HRC had taken interest in human rights issues in the U.S. and gave us a bad report. That is why we left.
        • Farnn, on 06/08/2008, -3/+3I would have left in that case too. Why are they spending time and resources investigating the US when there atrocities going on in Sudan, Zimbabwe, N. Korea, and Burma?
    • elendryst, on 06/07/2008, -10/+6The HRC is a joke. People have jumped on the Anti-Bush bandwagon, not that that's a bad thing, I want that man out of office just as much as the next American, but this is perhaps one of the most logical things he has done. Its intentions were to deal with the Human Rights crisis around the world, instead, they focus on Israel, because half the members of the council are from countries that object to Israel. It's failed in it's purpose and the United States pulled out of it in protest.
  • brightlight4, on 06/07/2008, -21/+159I guess that now at least we officially know where the US stand by having taken this decision.
    • diggrnumber1, on 06/07/2008, -3/+18it turns out they voted against the resolution to create the council in the first place (in 2006). The only other countries to vote against it were the Marshall Islands and Israel.
      • byrdgang, on 06/08/2008, -1/+2Those who are familiar with Israel will truly enjoy what you've pointed out (for those who don't, read up on the remarkably consistent voting record of the Marshall Islands, Israel, and USA on a number of issues).
    • Naieve, on 06/07/2008, -7/+7Condemned Israel 9 times, felt concern over Darfur once.

      The reason we voted against it is because we had already seen the joke that was its predecessor.

      Go look at a list of members of it...
  • Fangsinmybeard, on 06/07/2008, -67/+73It's official, we are know a third world country. We ain't no super power, because Georgy just crashed the U.S. economy.
    • JekJob, on 06/07/2008, -12/+21Luckily he won't be in office much longer. (Although, it was still EIGHT YEARS too long.)
      • kataztrophy, on 06/07/2008, -5/+2The Hillary supporters may vote McCain, just out of sheer spite. McCain = G.W. Bush part 2.
    • Spanq, on 06/07/2008, -7/+83Go live in a 3rd world country for a week, then come back and try make that idioitic statement again.
      • rpgmaker, on 06/07/2008, -9/+9He has no ***** idea of what he is talking about.
      • Gutterpunk, on 06/07/2008, -6/+11Would it be better to say the the USA is morally like a third world country? And the way that Bush runs it, it will soon be economically like it too.
        Don't forget that most of what we call "third world countries" was once the center of the world.
      • sassyjack, on 06/07/2008, -11/+5It is always funny to me when someone (usually parents or grandparents) that say something like "Go Live in China if you don't like it here" or "America, love it or leave it." And why don't you have to choose the most God-Aweful place in the world? Why not "Go live in Norway and see how you like it!" or "Go live in France and see how you like it!"

        I think a more apt comparison would be if I told your daughter or wife that she had to choose between food or condoms, and then yell at her when she gets AIDS because she was young and in love or (heaven forbid) raped. And then I buy your mortgage because your too busy trying to pay for AIDS meds, jack the price on you, and then tell you had to live in the garage while I razed your house because I told you that you had to dig for oil on your property, and then I kept the oil. And then I sent people to come live with you to show them how god-aweful your life was.
        • bphicke, on 06/07/2008, -2/+5Sassyjack, AIDS caused the housing bubble?!?
        • sassyjack, on 06/07/2008, -2/+3and 9/11.

          The problems in the "third-world" are problems that are a direct involvement or cause of the "first" or "best" world. My point is that if you keep perpetuating this myth that "here" is better than "there" because it sucks to heartbreaking degree, it is because we caused "there" to be Hell.
        • Spanq, on 06/07/2008, -2/+4We're responsible for every third-world country on Earth? Are you kidding me? What's the weather like up your own ass?
        • sassyjack, on 06/07/2008, -2/+2Pick a third world country.
        • junkwheel, on 06/07/2008, -3/+3Logic not found.
        • ShinRaTDR, on 06/07/2008, -2/+2"We're responsible for every third-world country on Earth"

          Its called globalization, or modern colonization. Read about it.
      • ultragush, on 06/08/2008, -0/+0while some countries below the north south divide (so called 3rd world countries) do indeed have it very tough indeed on the average fellow, say north korea. i would say that many countries that americans would call third world have a population that lead a happier and more fulfilling life than most americans do. materialism, television, entertainments galore, driving a car to go stand on an electrically powered treadmill for 30 minutes while plugged into some pop music... alcohol alcohol alcohol. i dont think modern living is really all its cracked up to be, but hell what do any of us really know... we don't know any different life.

        but you talk to anyone who has lived in a community where the word "community" still has meaning. id give everything to live as a native american 300 years ago, or as a european lake-dweller in the early hellenistic classical period. but living here, and now, and this rotten time of the earth, where man is sick and the world is sick and everythings quickly going to hell in a handbasket... i mean that is the true meaning of third world, or the worst world.

        an economic collapse is rapidly approaching. peak oil is already starting to hurt companies. food is running out. the sea levels will rise.

        and when the illusatory sea of our western happiness draws itself back, the suffering will take hold. and we will suffer.
      • kuzotz, on 06/09/2008, -1/+1I've lived in Turkey for half a damn year. We're a third world country. We have perfected the dual society to an art. There are parts of the US that are just like the bad parts of Turkey. I mean ***** there are parts of the US that truly is third world. Like N.O. . It's getting crazy, and nothing is going to change for the better because Bush signed an executive order privatizing all of our ***** infrastructures.
    • diggrnumber1, on 06/07/2008, -8/+22maybe on your planet, but not ours. we're still the most powerful country, even if the economy is slightly worse than before. Most other countries are also experiencing an economic downturn (as a result of the US economic problems).
      • Philophobic, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1The definition of slightly is not up for debate.
    • quickgold192, on 06/07/2008, -3/+11really?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World
    • MxM111, on 06/07/2008, -2/+2* now
    • MuskokasFinest, on 06/07/2008, -2/+1I think you need to take the "are" out of your statement...
    • tehxen3, on 06/07/2008, -6/+2Economy isn't even in a recession, dumbass.
      • alpha88, on 06/08/2008, -1/+2It will be, just wait. It's a natural cycle of the economy, and it will happen. The problem is not that there will be a recession, it's that it will be a very bad recession. Very bad recessions = depression periods.
      • kuzotz, on 06/09/2008, -1/+1telll that to the people in michigan.
    • Jareth86, on 06/08/2008, -1/+1I wouldn't say that, but we are well on our way to becoming a second world country...
    • emanueljones, on 06/08/2008, -0/+2We aren't a superpower?
      Militarily, we are - ex: we have 18 ohio class submarines, 4 of which carry 154 conventional tomahawk missiles each while the other 14 carry 24 Trident-II missiles apiece (those are the ones that CAN carry up to 12 independently targeted nuclear warheads, but because of treaties ONLY carry 4-5 each). By my calculations, that's 1344-1400 nuclear warheads. On ohio class submarines alone. Holy *****. (via wikipedia)
      In terms of economic superpower, if you check, our GDP (take it with a grain of salt) is still close to 1/5 the GWP.
      Third world nations lack things like running water, indoor pluming, etc. The U.S. definitely doesn't fit into that category.
  • livegreenordie, on 06/07/2008, -15/+38This could explain why~
    http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/06/06/usint19041. ...
    • norman619, on 06/07/2008, -16/+7I love this bit FTA:

      "The UN committee said it was concerned over reports of “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” of children held in Guantanamo and Iraq, and “that children who were recruited or used in armed conflict, rather than being considered primarily as victims, are classified as ‘unlawful enemy combatants’ and have been charged with war crimes and subject to prosecution by military tribunals, without due account of their status as children.” "

      If they were fighting on the battlefield they should be treated like any other enemy combatant.
      • pintomp3, on 06/07/2008, -2/+17MYTH: All the Guantanamo detainees are combatants who fought against the United States.

        FACT: Many of them were not picked up on or anywhere near the battlefield. Detainees were taken into custody from 14 different countries, including Gambia, Bosnia, and Thailand. About half were taken into custody in Pakistan – and, as noted above, the thousands of dollars offered by the US to bounty hunters encouraged false arrests. According to US military records, the US has not even accused the majority of them of fighting US or coalition forces.
        http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/guantanamo/2007/myths ...
      • lineweight, on 06/08/2008, -1/+3what's that? ohhh...that was just the sound of norman619 getting owned.
    • diggrnumber1, on 06/07/2008, -0/+13also, the human rights council has condemned Israel 9 times.
  • Shogi, on 06/07/2008, -24/+102This country is in dire need of a civil uprising to do some major house cleaning in our government. This has gone on far too long, and they have gotten away with far too much.
    • alpharaptor, on 06/07/2008, -2/+8careful there, i think you just earned yourself a spot on their ***** list. ***** goes down, the round everyone that ever mouthed off or mentioned the constitution "too much".
      • Abomonog, on 06/07/2008, -2/+6No he hasn't. Anyone with any brains at all knows our population is too ***** to stand up for themselves when things get hot. The very fact that cops can illegally arrest protesters without recourse proves this point.

        Any civil uprising would end the second anyone with authority said, "Go home or we are taking away your PS3's and Nintendo Wii's". These things are much more important to the American public than any non tangible items like civil liberties.

        And besides if there is a civil uprising people might get bumps and bruises and be emotionally scarred for the rest of their lives from them. We can have that happening in America can we?
    • Gutterpunk, on 06/07/2008, -8/+3Here I have a second option : You guys just stay put until Obama get elected. He will fix everything.

      /Try to guess which options will be the popular one.
      • evilesttoast, on 06/07/2008, -1/+4We are beyond simply fixing the problem
        • Gutterpunk, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2No doubt about that, but the armchair revolutionary always make me chuckle and I was simply offering a way that will be as effective as the one he proposed...
    • trevor98, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2Put up or shut up. Who are you waiting on?
      • Shogi, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1The rest of the country to stand beside me.
    • Mier, on 06/07/2008, -4/+1Go right ahead jackass. And when you march on Washington I'll be right there and if the government crumbles (doubtful) I'll make sure that a proper Constitutional government is reinstated. That means so long to all those welfare programs and all that socialist crap you liberals love so much.
      • RungeKutta, on 06/07/2008, -2/+1Obviously a hypothetical situation, but I have a couple questions for you.

        Which welfare programs would you outlaw in the constitution?
        Which forms of "socialist crap" would you outlaw in the constitution?

        Also, if you were to label yourself with some form of political ideology, which would that be? My guess is it would be some form right-wing ideology that borders on fascism, given that you're adamantly against socialism or any form of "socialist" government programs AND that you are immediately going to start this constitution out with outlawing issues rather than protecting them.
        • Mier, on 06/08/2008, -2/+2Ahh the last insult of the left. I'm a fascist? I want individual liberty enshrined as it once was. I want to be free of someone else's burdens.

          It's quite simple if the Constitution doesn't have it listed then it gets cut. Welfare, Medicare, Social Security, Department of Education, Department of Ag, etc. all of that would be gone. BUT before you try and call me evil. That would cover the IRS as well and all of those programs would be remanded to the states to fund with their tax dollars. No more federal income tax just state taxes and with levees and excise taxes the amount of trade should pay for those mandated federal duties.
          It's not about outlawing, that's what liberals do (ex. gun control), it's all about returning to a limited government. I'm more libertarian than republican but I am very conservative.
        • ultragush, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1this whole left/right divide is such a joke, since when can you condense every political issue into two opposing poles.

          all it does is make people more eager to hold onto their side of the coin, instead of promoting any logical discussion
    • person425, on 06/08/2008, -2/+1Rock on, because YOU could do a better job leading the country? If you really think so, run for office. The brilliance in the design of the country is that every 4 years, the public is given a legal way to overthrow the ruling party. Democratic elections change the country from the very top (president), down to the local level (neighborhood councils).

      The more corrupt it gets, the louder the people get (a good thing), and eventually the country rights itself again. Also, note that this country will never be a perfect utopia as you imagine it, but a careful balance of utopias as imagined by every citizen in the country.
      • snapcase, on 06/08/2008, -1/+2You forget some important factors. One thing is that you only get to choose from two political parties. Anything outside those parties aren't even fairly represented on the damned voting ballot. Then keep in mind that if you do try to join one of those parties that you can only do so if the people of that party deem you to fully fit in with their ideals. So in other words they'll only let you in if you show no signs of doing anything different.

        Then add in that people's opinions are controlled by big media that works hand in hand with those mentioned parties. That way nobody will ever get the real facts that would effect their decisions in those supposedly democratic elections. People don't vote informed. I don't see any way of really changing that. And apparently nobody else does either, because nothing is really changing.

        The American people are complacent in their situation. We won't do anything to change the course our country is headed down. We think we're the most powerful and most free nation in the world so what does it all matter? If one of our formerly cherished liberties gets taken from us we don't raise alarms, we don't cry foul, we just sit there an look at all the other liberties we still have left and remark about how no other countries have them the way we do. What's the loss of one liberty against all the others we still retain, and more importantly against the "security" that that loss will afford us. We will give up every last freedom we have and won't make any fuss until we have so little left as to be completely incapable of doing anything about it.

        The only way to make change in a system like this is to have the American people rise up as one and take action. Now you tell me how that can be done. This nation hasn't been united in anything since WWII. How do you inform people of the reality of the political situations in this country and cut through the bright lights being flashed in their eyes by biased media?
      • Shogi, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1I don't ever recall saying I want to take over or oust the government. I just said we need to get rid of a few dirtbags and *****.

        House cleaning, not hostile takeover.
  • wsuvtx, on 06/07/2008, -26/+20We are right up there with Myanmar. Government that is running our country into the ground and our government does not help its own people. And the government does not observe any human rights. Third World can we join the club?
  • Jlaugh, on 06/07/2008, -9/+142OMG *Obamaphage your the first person on Digg I've ever blocked.
    • SiXiam, on 06/07/2008, -2/+26Seconded....
    • inertiac, on 06/07/2008, -0/+55I joined just to bury those comments...
      • jackasher, on 06/07/2008, -0/+6Same here.

        PS. We can only hope time and inbreeding takes its toll.
      • GhettoMagic, on 06/08/2008, -0/+5You guys too?

        I joined just now for that very cause.
        • lotsa1s, on 06/08/2008, -0/+0I joined so I could be cool like you guys.

          Do you like me now?
    • icewater, on 06/07/2008, -1/+25What an ass he is, even with his mental problems. Glad to see him down where he belongs.
    • DrSnugglebunny, on 06/07/2008, -3/+41"A 29 year-old transgender from Elbonia (BH) who joined Digg on June 7th, 2008"
      i.e., troll
      he'll lose interest and go fellate Bill O'Reilly or something.
      • archiesteel, on 06/07/2008, -2/+18That's because he was previously banned for pulling the same racist nonsense.

        Guys like him are lucky the Internet provides anonymity, because his sorry white ass would get a good whoopin' (and yes, I'm white).
    • diggrnumber1, on 06/07/2008, -31/+3i love the occasional ***** comment. i dugg his comments up just because he was such a jerk it was hilarious. he did a good job.
    • Violette888, on 06/07/2008, -10/+4I agree, he is obnoxious, but I feel kinda sad for him... like most of us, he will probably never get a chance to speak his mind on issues he's passionate about.... the internet is his only chance...
      • Gemfinder, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1You've become so open-minded your brains have fallen out.
    • AriaStar, on 06/07/2008, -4/+6I've never blocked anyone and don't know how. I'm going to find out how now. Those comments were just plain uncalled for. Hateful, discriminatory, hell, Bush-like.
      • diggrnumber1, on 06/07/2008, -1/+3digg him down and then press "block user" underneath the username.
      • OffPiste, on 06/07/2008, -2/+4Yep I agree, Bush-like. Bush never appointed a single black to any high office or department.
        • halfemptyfilms, on 06/08/2008, -0/+2I see what you did there... +1
        • vbh61422, on 06/08/2008, -0/+0you gotta put the "fact" before that...
      • xister, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1I hope you guys are taking the time to click the "report" button also.
    • forceuser, on 06/07/2008, -6/+2He amuses me
    • MoClippa, on 06/07/2008, -0/+5I didn't even realize you could block people! Well, he's the first on my list as well.
    • nycmac247, on 06/07/2008, -1/+1-
    • dlite922, on 06/08/2008, -0/+3I wanna throw this guy in prison with the biggest black population.

      And then Send a copy of this to every inmate.

      FACT#1: Blacks usually have humongous length and girth, which causes deep anal bleeding.

      /sorry for language, but he just PISSED me OFF!!!
      • MtheoryX, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1I know what you're trying to say, but didn't you just commit the same offense of ignorance that he did with your generalization?

        It's probably enough to say you're pissed and block him, and then let it be.
    • Bodhinature, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1I've never found the need to block a use until Obamaphage. What an ignorant retard. He can stay on his plantation and keep ***** his pure lilly white sisters for all I care.
    • hitmanjc103, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1What did he say??
  • astevens54, on 06/07/2008, -46/+19The sooner America kicks the UN out of this country, the better. We do not need the UN or another country to dictate to us how we should live or govern ourselves.
    • chicoer2001, on 06/07/2008, -8/+29But the US should dictate other countries?
    • SuperSunny, on 06/07/2008, -7/+14No, but a universal system of living and in peace would be beneficial. Universal rights and such.
      • norman619, on 06/07/2008, -11/+6Living in peace is a pipe-dream. Our nature is conflict. The thousands of years of human history should tell you that much.
        • geezor, on 06/07/2008, -0/+5By that logic, living with computers or with a space program is a pipe-dream. Our nature is living in stone caves. The Millions of years of human history should tell you that.
        • norman619, on 06/08/2008, -3/+1Geezor:

          Sorry but computers and such are just tools. Take away our accumulated knowledge, tacke away our technology, and keep a generation from teaching the coming generation and you would see exactly who and what we are. We would revert to our hunter/gatherer roots. We have not evlved much is at all. You really think just because we have these amazing tools and built up all this knowledge that we have actually changed? Oh, and living in caves isn't a nature. A thing's nature is what it is born with not something that is learned like where to live. You really need to learn a bit about this subject before trying to debate it.
        • nirav72, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1"Take away our accumulated knowledge"

          Sorry, but our collective knowledge will never be lost. We could loose technology though. Therefore we will never go back to living in caves. We might live in huts for a while, but never in caves.



    • myass666mlong, on 06/07/2008, -7/+8agree :)
    • robbiedo, on 06/07/2008, -4/+11Do you realize how completely infantile a statement like that is? The entire post WW II international regime has brought about the greatest expansion of wealth, relative peace, human rights , and democratic norms. Are there problems? Yes. However, a considerable part of the UN's problem is US transigence to provide leadership, follow through on obligations, and this post Cold War attitude to "go it alone." Look how that has worked out!
      • lordno, on 06/07/2008, -0/+4Agreed. but the post WWII scene has brought anything but peace. We were only out of the Cold War less than 20 years ago! Before that, we had commercials telling people to hide under their desks in case of nuclear attacks! Desert Storm, Operation Desert Fox (Clinton's bombing campaign), the Iraq War, Korean War, Vietnam, all the other minor wars to halt the spread of communism, the entire Middle East and North Africa has been in a complete state of turmoil ever since we carved out Israel for the Jews and they are still killing each other to this day. It is on the news all the time. Cuba's embargo, the over a dozen countries that have successfully revolted against the former USSR to gain their independence, the genocide and civil wars and starvation that have plagued many of the African countries since WWII. The holocaust killed 12 million people. It is said that 76,000,000 have been killed 1945 to 1987. That is just during the Cold War period. Add another 100,000,000 to the post Cold War and you will find that this period has been the bloodiest, most abusive period in human history. Post Cold War and Cold War have both been worst periods of human history to date. Neither period is anything to brag about.
        Oh yeah. Link for the stats about deaths
        http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/POSTWWII.HTM
        • robbiedo, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1I did say "relative peace," which mostly applies to the Western and other developed countries. No WW III happened. So, relative peace compared to the first half of the 20th century.
        • kuzotz, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1yea for the most part. Most of the human population doesn't live in the developed world. Thus they are experiencing ***** that Europe dealt with during it's dark age.

          It's kinda crazy but the way people die today is ridiculious and very brutal. I had to argue this with some dumbass who thinks warfare 100000 yrs ago was more brutal. It was brutal, but not like today because today it's so damn systematic that its crazy. That with a few shots of a gun, and a bomb can end so many lives at once. This time period of human history is probably one of the most dangerous, and fast paced, and yea brutal time periods to live in. Also one of the most stressful time periods if you just so happen to live in the developed world. Also if you do live in the developed world then you are truly a minority.
    • Hangly, on 06/07/2008, -2/+1Yes, but not so we can commit human rights abuses.

      So this wasn't really the best thread to bring that argument up in.
    • helleborus, on 06/07/2008, -1/+6But it's fine to have an elite and exclusive body of multinational corporate interests dictating every aspect of our economic lives? It's ok that California's effort to keep MTBE of their drinking water can result in a Canadian company suing the state because of the potential profit they might have been deprived of? This is sick! But the you will never hear the 'US out of UN' crowd pushing to get us out of these global financial institutions and whacky trade policies that trump our laws in secret tribunals.
    • rz8472, on 06/08/2008, -1/+2As fairly dovish liberal, I actually don't think pulling out is such a big deal - certainly it does send the wrong message - but it's hard to see the UN Human Rights Council as legitimate when China, Sudan, and Saudi Arabia are member nations.

      Let's focus on the Bush Administration's tacit approval of torture and breaking of the Geneva Conventions.
  • smek2, on 06/07/2008, -16/+48And they call themselfes the free civilisated world. It's a paradox, they call out other nations as evil, they claim to be on a crusade for freedom and democracy and yet, their actions are completely opposite of that.
    • Naieve, on 06/07/2008, -10/+2You've never looked at the track record of the HRC and its predecessor have you.
      This is like screaming at someone for not being part of the Nazi Party in Germany during WW2.
    • Abomonog, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2Exactly what country are you complaining about here?
      • smek2, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1What do you think? Which nation declared themself the "western free civilization" and started a crusade in the name of freedom and democracy? Which nation ignored geneva conventions and now quit the Human Rights Council?
    • arplayer2k, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1the USA as a democratic nation is a huge hypocrite. Anyone that can think independently and interpret data should be able to come to that conclusion.
  • knoxchris, on 06/07/2008, -21/+46Let's see how the Bushbots spin this one.
    • tidu, on 06/07/2008, -0/+16They don't need to, because nobody but is Diggers will ever find out...
    • diggrnumber1, on 06/07/2008, -2/+7easy. they'll just say that the rest of the world is wrong about israel, iraq, and torture at gitmo. they're mostly religious nuts anyway, so reason and factual evidence won't sway them.
      • Farnn, on 06/08/2008, -1/+2And you seem like just the type who would be swayed by a well reasoned and factual argument...
    • Hangly, on 06/07/2008, -5/+4Stop calling people bots goddammit!
      • DoctaLivingston, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2Agreed idiots are people too.
    • Naieve, on 06/07/2008, -3/+7I'm not a Bushbot, but I have read the record of the HRC.

      Perhaps you should too.
  • Shadowgamers, on 06/07/2008, -23/+9Good going America. Your next president is going to have one hell of a hard time rebuilding your image.
    also, ha ha, HRC.
  • built2spill, on 06/07/2008, -7/+19If I block Obamaphage, how could I bury him?
    • rationalist, on 06/07/2008, -1/+15Bury first, then report. Then, if you must, block.
      • dondara, on 06/07/2008, -4/+4Better yet, let's hunt his dumbass down and set him on fire. The anonymity of the net sucks ass sometimes.
        • Stevethegreat, on 06/07/2008, -2/+3What's wrong with being racist, apart from being wrong? If he incites violence (it) is only due to people being ignorant. If people knew that we have no reason to believe that "negros" are of lower intelligence than "whities" and that in fact we're the same specie with little to no variation and that -in fact- it's cultural variation what makes certain groups to *seem* more intelligent, then you wouldn't need to burn him you would just discount him as a nutjob which he is. There are plenty of nutjobs in an asylum we don't burn them either.

          Why are we so afraid of so many things like holocaust denial, racism and religious criticism and get offended as a matter of fact instead of calmly and rationally disproving each and every of those lame positions? It's a lot more productive that way, it raises consciousness and it doesn't make some intelligent idiots to suspect that there is a conspiracy behind the baring of racism and holocaust denial from a conversation. Not only you kill their arguments but also kill the incentive to make more like them, on the other hand burning them or jailing them you're making martyrs out of them. We need to cleanse society from toxic ideas not from their agents, get it straight for once.
        • GhettoMagic, on 06/08/2008, -1/+1This is what I love about digg, one moment I'll be thinking just like what dondara said, then the next I'm agreeing with someone with completely opposite thoughts (stevethegreat).
          You got my digg.
    • twiztidsinz, on 06/07/2008, -0/+7If you block him, it will show as "Blocked User" and offer a Show button. You can then show the comment and choose to Hide it again or Bury and Report.
    • malex, on 06/08/2008, -1/+2He's a troll. Burying a troll is like giving him a trophy.

      All he wants out of Digg is to be an object of attention. The more people block him, the sooner he's have to some some other petty way to amuse himself.
  • davidhallstrom, on 06/07/2008, -21/+45Anyone who has paid attention to the workings of the Human Rights Council should know that it is a joke. It accomplishes nothing.
    • norman619, on 06/07/2008, -6/+3Much like Amnesty International.
    • diggrnumber1, on 06/07/2008, -0/+8so that means we should leave the council? the council sends a message, just like the UN, even if it doesn't have its own army.
      • Pake, on 06/07/2008, -2/+3We we're really even a part of the council. We were just spectators who occasionally would said something. In essence, nothing has changed.
      • nikitab, on 06/08/2008, -1/+1By staying, legitimacy is given to an organization that doesn't perform its intended function.
    • SilverBlade2k, on 06/07/2008, -4/+5much like the U.N. It never really did accomplish anything..
      • tama00, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1They have done loads of peace keeping all over the world and aided support for nature disasters!

        So i find your comment insulting to the people who volunteer for these operations.
  • kingUssop, on 06/07/2008, -17/+13The US hasn't quit on that. Those things in the White House don't speak for us.
    • norman619, on 06/07/2008, -5/+7Wrong. We voted them into office so they actually do.
      • Tyrghast, on 06/07/2008, -1/+5Wrong. I didn't vote for *****, I was too young. Sadly, I have to suffer the sins of the previous generations.
        • norman619, on 06/08/2008, -4/+1LOL!!! What a child. face reality. the PEOPLE voted them into office so these conmen and women actually DO speak for us. I bet you are with the majority of people in our country who do not vote yet love to bitch about it.
      • Gemfinder, on 06/08/2008, -1/+1I didn't vote for that little worm either. It ain't on me, sunshine. Who did YOU vote for?
        • norman619, on 06/08/2008, -2/+1Hmmm... Someone sems to have forgotten the crappy choices we had in the last election. Kerry or Bush. Who did you vote ofr. That is, if you voted at all. We back in the ***** choices position this election cycle.
        • Gemfinder, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1I voted for Kerry. So did most of the people I know. He took my county by a 40-point margin. Go ahead, tell a whole city we made the wrong choice.
          So answer the question, who did YOU vote for?
  • Morshade, on 06/07/2008, -8/+2wow man*************
  • nastronomical, on 06/07/2008, -10/+53The day the conucil does something about Dafur is when i give them an ounce of credit.
  • zerofem, on 06/07/2008, -10/+4One more step towards Year Zero. Something must be done.
  • SiXiam, on 06/07/2008, -19/+51Lovely past members of the Human Rights Council:
    Algeria, China, Cuba, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, and Libya.

    They must love Sudan and the genocide in Darfur.
    The United States left for good reason!

    • twiztidsinz, on 06/07/2008, -8/+10I think the fact that they are PAST members says something. Now WE are in that group.
      Giving every country the opportunity to join isn't a bad thing, it was probably offered in hopes that they'd change their ways -- maybe not instantly, but work to correct any wrongs they have done in the past and not make those same mistakes.
      Yet here we are.... America's headed south fast and this is just icing on the ***** cake.
    • alpha88, on 06/08/2008, -4/+7You missed one.

      Lovely past members of the Human Rights Council:
      Algeria, China, Cuba, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, Libya, and the United States.

      Awesome being in that group isn't it? Enjoy your wiretaps.
  • McShr3dd3r, on 06/07/2008, -17/+4The White House IS the Devil!!!!

    I think..
  • DrSnugglebunny, on 06/07/2008, -12/+13I love the smiling picture of Bush on that page. Smiling his way to infamy.
  • Timdegreat, on 06/07/2008, -18/+52No offence, but these human rights councils and the like are often a joke. Take for instance Durban 2, the United Nations sponsored conference on racism to take place shortly. The United States and Canada have already said they will boycott the conference. Why? Because at these events all that happens is the bashing of Israel. At Durban 2 the committee drawing up the agenda is Libyan, with vice-chairs from Iran, Pakistan and Cuba. Can you guess what will be on the number one priority of those countries? Conveniently Durban 2 is scheduled to take place on the most high Jewish holidays of Yom Kippur and Passover. I don't know much about the human rights council, but I bet it doesn't care much about human rights. It probably cares a hell of alot about Israel though.
    • dondara, on 06/07/2008, -4/+8Gee, why does everybody hate Israel so much?
      • pintomp3, on 06/07/2008, -9/+3most reasonable people don't support apartheid, like desmond tutu:
        http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/29/commen ...
      • Abomonog, on 06/07/2008, -8/+12I personally don't hate them but I know why they are hated in the middle east.

        After WW2 there was a very large homeless Jewish population wandering around Europe and they needed a place to stay. Now logically they should have been awarded control of Germany but the fact that Russia wanted control of the country and the fact that even today Jews are mysteriously hated by most of the world this wasn't going to happen. So the Jewish leaders said, "How about we take the holy land." So the Allies looked at Palestine. They were weak. They were poor. And no one worth mentioning was Palestinian. So with a little help from the U.S. and British armies in 1954 the cleansing of what is now Israel commenced. 4 years and several hundred thousand dead Palestinians later the Jewish state of Israel was established and fed the finest military hardware the U.S. could offer. Too add insult to injury this hardware was used to slaughter another million troops in an event called the 6 day war. Admittedly these troops were from 5 Arab nations trying to destroy Israel, but the general consensus is that the 6 day war only needed to last 2 days as all 5 armies were crippled after day 2.

        Today the nation of Israel stands on land that has been Palestine since biblical times and it does so because of a policy that makes Apartheid look like a school reform policy.

        The Arabs may seem heartless in wanting to destroy Israel but their reasons are valid and anyone who backs Israel (Including us) is hated too.

        Israel is one of the reasons 9/11 happened. If not for the Treaty of Versailles and the presence of Israel we would be having no middle east trouble and really cheap oil today.
        • beatpre, on 06/07/2008, -5/+6One of the most knowledgeable replies I've ever read on digg. Well played sir, well played.
        • Farnn, on 06/08/2008, -3/+7Wow, the amount of wrong information in that post is amazing. There were plenty of Jews in the area before WW2 even started. The idea of Zionism began before 1900. Israel became a nation in 1948 after being attacked simultaneously by the surrounding Arab countries and defending themselves. I could go on but I would probably still miss many of your statements needing correction.
        • Tangaroa, on 06/08/2008, -1/+4What Farnn said. It's one fabrication after another. I'm having trouble finding a single factual assertion in that post.

          "Admittedly these troops were from 5 Arab nations trying to destroy Israel" - There, I think that's one.
        • prometheanspark, on 06/08/2008, -1/+2Actually huge numbers of Jews already lived in British controlled Palestine before WW2 even broke out and friction between the Jews, Arabs and British led to the partition of Israel and Palestine after the war. Palestine itself was randomly carved out of the Ottoman empire.
        • joehill, on 06/08/2008, -1/+1Farnn: he did not say there were no Jews in Palestine, he did not mention Zionism even once, and he did mention that Israel was attacked by its neighbours.

          I didn't see anything wrong with his info, but I see you spending a lot of time avoiding dealing with the info he did provide.

          Typical apologist for Israel, ignore the facts and attack a Straw Man.
    • Bodhinature, on 06/08/2008, -1/+1You don't know much about the Human Rights Council? Well then SHUT THE ***** UP!
  • myass666mlong, on 06/07/2008, -8/+7so when is ww3 ?
    im thinkin to move to groenlandia
  • Barbrady, on 06/07/2008, -19/+32Good. The HRC has been hijacked by a bunch of corrupt Islamic and African countries anyway.
  • solarisom, on 06/07/2008, -18/+19This is so disappointing. Obama has a lot of fixin' to do after o8.
    • prometheanspark, on 06/08/2008, -1/+1More like a lot of reality checking.
  • rodgerse, on 06/07/2008, -16/+5Good.it doesn't deserve to be they're.It has never been that fond of human rights.

    I'm sure the indians, blacks, japanese and vietnamese (south-east asians), arabs, and soon the persians (iran) would agree...
  • Shaman760, on 06/07/2008, -15/+10So ummm...world, please, when the current regime is out of office, please pressure the new administration to send the former criminals to trial.

    Do that and we'll ALL be thankful. Bush wants a "new world order" well then, step up and show him that other countries have some semblance of "sack" and try him and his cronies, and mete out the appropriate punishment.
  • richeperkin, on 06/07/2008, -11/+5Leaving an institution that has 'become corrupt' isn't going to fix the problems. It's like sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalala so you don't have to hear anything. And it's not like we can hold this country up to be so superior with the human rights violations going on. We can do it cos it's for our own safety, but they can't cos they're not us?
  • 55mph, on 06/07/2008, -12/+7The Wizard has finally torn back the curtain and said a big ***** You to human rights. It's about time. The Corporatocracy running this country have been overt hypocrites far too long.
    • prometheanspark, on 06/08/2008, -1/+1Too late, the Human Rights Council already tore back the curtain and waved it's fugly junk at the abused of the world by ignoring them to attack Israel exclusively.
  • Mattso, on 06/07/2008, -18/+13 despicable administration is despicable
  • sylvok, on 06/07/2008, -14/+8Remember, remember the 5th of November.
    • Electric_Sheep, on 06/07/2008, -2/+3Unm thats very relevant....

      "Remember, Remember the 5th of November" is about a Catholic terrorist trying to blow up the Protestant king of England and parliament.

      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2No it was about resisting oppression.
  • monkeystick, on 06/07/2008, -11/+15I'd be surprised to see this story even make major headlines here in the U.S.

    This nation is out cold and unaware.
    • alpha88, on 06/08/2008, -0/+4U.S. Media = U.S. Government Propaganda
  • WorfoSAUR, on 06/07/2008, -10/+26I love these people who have little to no idea what the human rights council is or how it is a complete failure because it allows in nations whose citizens possess no rights. This is a good step for our nation.
    • HakonD, on 06/07/2008, -5/+3Actually, half these comments have been exactly like yours. You aren't smart and special at all.
  • 9bpm9, on 06/07/2008, -8/+8A country by the people and for the people. We elected everyone in the government, so don't even try and act like you aren't responsible for what's going on in this country.
    • ZTiger, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1So you want to burn the dissenting vote with the rest of the people? Wow do you even care about collateral damage? I don't agree with the Bush administration on most things but I do agree with getting out of this so called "human rights council". I'd prefer we got out of the UN as well as pulled our troop out of the rest of the world as well. Europe has an army they don't need our bases and to suck off our tax money.
  • coffee200am, on 06/07/2008, -13/+29LOL! The "UN" human rights council is a joke.....just like the "UN".
    Half the members aren't democracies. With members like Sudan, China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan...who needs human rights?
    • dynamicbinding, on 06/07/2008, -8/+15democracy != human rights
      • mb96net, on 06/07/2008, -3/+3You're right (dynamicbinding) and some how you get dugg down and coffee200am gets dugg up? When did all the right wingers join digg?
        • webcrumb, on 06/08/2008, -2/+1Beginning of 2007. It's not just right-wingers, it's a load of noise-makers. They're fairly easy to spot, though.
        • pidgas, on 06/08/2008, -0/+2You mean, you miss the good old days when digg was an echochamber for the fans of the huffington post, media matters, daily kos, rawstory, crooksandliars, and thinkprogress?

          Oh, wait...
      • pidgas, on 06/08/2008, -0/+3autocracy != human rights
        pleutocracy != human rights
        despotism != human rights
        oligarchy != human rights
        theocracy != human rights
        monarchy != human rights
    • workharderscum, on 06/07/2008, -3/+4Apparently America isn't a democracy, but rather a republic.

      So now the proportion of democratic members has increased slightly....
    • reedatschool, on 06/07/2008, -4/+1Yes getting many nations together to discuss our future is a joke when you really don't care what everyone thinks. If it is broken then fix it, do not walk away from the table.

      The US doesn't want to "hear" African and Islamic nations? GO FIGURE! Our administration doesn't even want to listen to our own people let alone someone else who disagrees.

      This is pathetic, the real corruption is our move to once again establish our dominate imperialistic attitudes.
    • blaker00, on 06/07/2008, -0/+3 We are not a democracy! but rather a constitutional republic. Our forefathers hated democracies for a reason.
  • Po0py, on 06/07/2008, -11/+5Wow. When I first glanced at this title on digg I had to double check the link to see if it was from The Onion. Holy *****.
  • cadmiumpaint, on 06/07/2008, -12/+24Well when Obama takes over he'll just re-join.

    I get the feeling that once W is out, America will start to get credibility and respect back.....unless McCain wins, then we're up a creek.
    • nastronomical, on 06/07/2008, -13/+6lol AHH THE IGNORANCE OF HOPE.
      • Infidelcastr0, on 06/07/2008, -1/+3Maybe you can answer me some questions, I've always wondered about this. What does it feel like to have your head in the sand? How do you breathe?
    • monkeyrun, on 06/07/2008, -10/+3Yeah, Obama. The candidate who's going to change everything and give everybody hope.

      Did he or did he not vote against impeachment? Oh right....... He is so not Hillary-lite.
    • pidgas, on 06/08/2008, -2/+6Yes, yes...we know. Obama is the messiah.

      "this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

      And to think he's overcome his victimization by tobacco companies as well.

      Kumbayah!!!
    • pingudownunder, on 06/08/2008, -0/+4Seriously ... once the current administration is out ... the US will start to have the opportunity to gain credibility and respect. Your government has many years of damage to address and it won't happen overnight.

      Here in Australia our new government has been doing precisely that - ratifying Kyoto, apologising to the Aboriginal people, killing off WorkChoices ... but to be fair to them they also know that there's much more to do to gain the trust of the people.

      Summary - Actions speak louder than words.
      • pidgas, on 06/08/2008, -1/+1Pssst. Kyoto has been an abysmal failure.
    • prometheanspark, on 06/08/2008, -2/+1Yep, Obama is going to sit down the the leaders of these countries and convince them not to hate Israel, or not to be bribed into hating Israel, and they'll all skip around hand-in-hand bringing human rights to everyone...
  • Hangly, on 06/07/2008, -6/+3*sigh*
  • Bloodboiler, on 06/07/2008, -15/+12For the fist time Bush administration makes a political decision that makes sense. After all, US being in Human Rights Council would be like a serial rapist in feminist convention.

    To complete official transition from world police to world mafia they need to be added to Interpol's global wanted list and eventually tried in Human rights court in Hagen.
    • rakovlam, on 06/07/2008, -3/+0then you need to stay away from the feminist conventions.
    • mlhams, on 06/08/2008, -1/+1Actually, the US is the only civilized country in the world who long ago declared that it does not recognize the international court in The Hague -- Bush & Co. knew that they could be prosecuted for war crimes just like the ex-Yugoslavian gangs.
  • bincoder, on 06/07/2008, -7/+9The problem with being in this and that world group is 'the world' consists of many individual countries represented by many self interested individuals who want whatever it may be that They want no matter what the target of their generosity wants or can achieve. It seems the collective 'world' always wants the US to be its big mean daddy sent by God to impose dominion over any others who don't happen to agree with the UN and its similar controlling derivitives. What if they decide China has terrible human rights? Under their control, they would have the US break them using $$$ and if that doesn't work perhaps WW3 is in order. Of course, the same ones that want control in the first place would turn around in a nanosecond and then shake their fingers at the US for doing what they wanted. Much like what happened in Iraq. Remember the UN and 'rights groups' were all for that invasion and also assumed that Saddam had his WMDs. Afterward, they turned around as usual and decided ts all americas fault. I love democracy, but there is a point where democracy overtakes liberty and just plain common sense. Forced democracy is at least as bad as rule under Hitler or any other dictatorship, even if the forcing is the 'will of the people' whoever 'the people' are. This idea of a new or one world order was germanys dream during WW2.
    It was a stupid idea then, it is stupid now, and will always be stupid in the future.
    The time is at hand for the US to take care of the US as job one. If others find themselves under a repressive government let them overthrow and change it. If they Really want to change it, they can. By themselves, without the US doing it for them.
    • s2ao, on 06/07/2008, -0/+3Excuse, when did any country ask the US for intervention and when did the US ever do it out of the goodness of it's heart?

      The vast majority of places where there is American intervention would like to see the back of it.

      Successive US governments have repeatedly financed coups against democratically elected governments and have repeatedly supported evil dictators. Greeks, Iranians, Arabs, Turks, Chileans, Colombians and loads of others hate the US for similar interventions in their countries that you, sir, and the vast majority of Americans don't seem to be aware of.

      So cut the arrogance, the US is not doing anyone a favor by meddling with their affairs...
  • DigitAl56K, on 06/07/2008, -7/+2Old news?

    http://rawstory.com/news/afp/US_refuses_to_join_UN ...

    Still important, though.
  • ImperialRome, on 06/07/2008, -11/+16Now drop the other shoe. Withold all US contributions to the corrupt UN. Then take the wrecking ball to their occupation of Manhattan.
    • reedatschool, on 06/07/2008, -2/+4Bush appointed a UN delegate that doesn't even believe in the charter or the organization. Can't get anymore blatant than that.

      The "neo-cons" see only one world, under homeland security, with oil and corruption for all.
    • Bodhinature, on 06/08/2008, -2/+3Okay, the UN can pull out of Manhattan if the US pulls out of its 700 bases all over the world.
  • orlfman, on 06/07/2008, -12/+18Now we just need to leave the U.N.
    • Ortheos, on 06/08/2008, -1/+2From rogue state to international pariah in 2 easy steps. You're basically saying "let's leave the world forum". That pits USA + puppets vs world.
    • lazerflesh, on 06/08/2008, -1/+1No thanks... I'm all about the world peace. .. And if some third world "what are antibiotics" country wants to randomly kill its people.. I really don't give a *****.

      In fact- let them have their dictatorship. Honestly these countries are just extreme versions of conservatism. So maybe they'll slowly become successful, like China.

      In fact hey, if we focus on ourselves than we'll be able to go to their lands and be kings for a few days. Sounds good to me.
  • elifab, on 06/07/2008, -5/+18The human rights council has nothing to do with what happens within a country. This move by the united states does not say that they are going to ignore all human rights (though some diggers do believe the united states is in a similar place to Sudan in those terms it feels). This move only says the united states no longer wants to participate in a council that is in entirety a mockery of human rights.
  • barbiesnow, on 06/07/2008, -9/+6Well, now isn't this something else..We owe our soul and our Country to China, and in order to continue to have them bail us out on the expenses of Iraq, we bail on Human Rights..fair trade? my a.. Oh,now it is ok for everyone to go to the Olympics in China, to help pay for the disastrous results of the earthquake, that killled so many because of the inadequate construction of schools by a corrupt government..Welcome to the world of Free (?) Trade (off)
  • abferry, on 06/07/2008, -10/+4Sigh. It's sad to see that the Bush administration is royally screwing things up for all of us US citizens who actually care about what happens in the rest of the world.
  • Barackalypse, on 06/07/2008, -4/+17The HRC is impotent and biased. It focuses on Israel to the near exclusion of far greater human rights violations like those in the Sudan. Take a read of the article below, this quote sums it up nicely, "The regime of Gen. Omar al-Bashir, which is responsible for at least 200,000 deaths in Darfur, didn't just escape any censure. Sudan was a co-sponsor on behalf of the Arab League of the latest condemnations of Israel, adopted last week."
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
    Kudos to the US for not participating in this sham.
    • prometheanspark, on 06/08/2008, -0/+2Thanks for the best response to this story!

      Note that the EU recently threatened to withdraw their members too because of the council's cranial anal inversion.

      What's Obama or McCain going to get done on the council? Throw Israel under the bus in the hopes that the council gets on to 'less pressing' buisness, like, y'know, genocide, slavery, child prostitution and the like?
  • ladbrooks, on 06/07/2008, -5/+14Anyone who has paid attention to the workings of the Human Rights Council should know that it is a joke. It accomplishes nothing.
  • ortucis, on 06/07/2008, -4/+11lol @ members including > China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan

    • SaraLiberty, on 08/16/2008, -1/+4Why would Pakistan be a problem? The US administration loves to give Pakistan president Musharraf's government some $200 million annually and give his military $100 million dollar monthly handouts in the form of untraceable 'direct cash transfers." Once that money leaves the U.S. Treasury, Musharraf can do with it whatever he wants. "Untraceable cash transfers" you know what that means. Drug money. Money laundering. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives ...

      Okay, so welfare $$$ for our own citizens is BAD, but welfare $$$ for a military dictator is GOOD!

      We are bankrupting our nation, robbing our citizens, allowing our infrastructure to fall apart, in order to enrich a military dictatorship that will not make our own nation any safer. There is something horribly wrong with this picture. This ***** will only be "business as usual" with a "new" president puppet in office. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
      • brezhoneg, on 06/09/2008, -1/+0That is called realpolitik. It is one thing to support their government to achieve a particular goal, a completely different one to let them have a seat at the UN Human Rights Council.
        Moral relativism at its best, so typical of left-wing thinking.
  • yosserhughes, on 06/07/2008, -5/+0Whats the point of being a member of a club whose rules you have no intention of following?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 105 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.