|
|
Post by garfield on Oct 23, 2012 1:17:51 GMT 10
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights has warned Americans not to elect Republican Mitt Romney in next month’s presidential election, saying that doing so would be “a democratic mandate for torture.”
The UN’s Ben Emmerson was referring to Romney’s refusal to rule out the use of waterboarding in interrogating terror detainees, a practice that President Barack Obama has ended.
Colin Perkel of The Canadian Press reported Emmerson’s remarks from a symposium in Toronto on the impact of 9/11 on human rights:
"The re-introduction of torture under a Romney administration would significantly increase the threat levels to (Americans) at home and abroad," Emmerson said.
"Such a policy, if adopted, would expose the American people to risks the Obama administration is not currently exposing them to."
U.S. intelligence services were able to pinpoint Osama bin Laden’s location and carry out the successful mission to kill him in May 2011 based on information yielded during waterboarding of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and information from Al Qaeda operative Hassan Ghul, who was captured in Iraq in 2004.
Obama opposed both waterboarding and the Iraq War, without which bin Laden would not have been found.
Emmerson warned that Romney could reinstate waterboarding if he took office. He also criticized the Obama administration’s drone program--an initiative begun by the Bush administration but accelerated by President Obama, partly because of his reluctance to capture, detain or interrogate terror suspects.
In a second term, Obama may renew efforts to close the Guantanámo Bay prison, despite widespread public opposition.
The f#ckin UN hey?, bunch of leftoid wankers!
|
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Oct 23, 2012 6:22:47 GMT 10
Not surprising to see you in favour of torture.
|
|
|
|
Post by garfield on Oct 23, 2012 7:51:28 GMT 10
Why else would I read your posts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2012 11:43:59 GMT 10
This was the same UN that wanted was it Libya or Iran on a UN human rights panel? LOL
UN = Unmitigated nonsense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2012 15:17:38 GMT 10
If it were me, and I am so glad its not, but were I an American I would vote for Romney, because the Mormons are generally speaking not corrupt. Obama is corrupt and corruption is a major problem in the US for the whole world - as in GFC. I think that, like Altair, it's just that you hate mates. You cannot handle the thought of a darkie being the Prez of Jesusland!  |
|
|
|
Post by garfield on Oct 24, 2012 17:05:40 GMT 10
[quote author=madmonk board=general thread=299 post=3411 time=1351060648 ... Didn't take long for this board to reach a new low.  [/quote] Funny stuff coming from the biggest supporter of lets defame Abbott the family man just for political purposes ... cockhead! |
|
|
|
Post by pim on Oct 24, 2012 18:09:37 GMT 10
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights has warned Americans not to elect Republican Mitt Romney in next month’s presidential election, saying that doing so would be “a democratic mandate for torture.” The UN’s Ben Emmerson was referring to Romney’s refusal to rule out the use of waterboarding in interrogating terror detainees, a practice that President Barack Obama has ended. Colin Perkel of The Canadian Press reported Emmerson’s remarks from a symposium in Toronto on the impact of 9/11 on human rights: "The re-introduction of torture under a Romney administration would significantly increase the threat levels to (Americans) at home and abroad," Emmerson said. "Such a policy, if adopted, would expose the American people to risks the Obama administration is not currently exposing them to." U.S. intelligence services were able to pinpoint Osama bin Laden’s location and carry out the successful mission to kill him in May 2011 based on information yielded during waterboarding of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and information from Al Qaeda operative Hassan Ghul, who was captured in Iraq in 2004. Obama opposed both waterboarding and the Iraq War, without which bin Laden would not have been found. Emmerson warned that Romney could reinstate waterboarding if he took office. He also criticized the Obama administration’s drone program--an initiative begun by the Bush administration but accelerated by President Obama, partly because of his reluctance to capture, detain or interrogate terror suspects. In a second term, Obama may renew efforts to close the Guantanámo Bay prison, despite widespread public opposition. The f#ckin UN hey?, bunch of leftoid wankers! Is that a fact? Sounds like a gratuitous piece of interference in a democratic election in a sovereign nation to me, no matter what any of us might think of Mitt Romney. I hope the guy got a kick right up where the sun don't shine from Ban Ki Moon. |
|
|
|
Post by pim on Oct 24, 2012 18:12:17 GMT 10
It's certainly a statement the Australian Government, now Australia is on the Security Council, should dissociate itself from.
|
|
|
|
Post by Salem on Oct 24, 2012 18:23:47 GMT 10
I think that, like Altair, it's just that you hate mates.
You cannot handle the thought of a darkie being the Prez of Jesusland!  This says everything about KTJ. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2012 23:13:50 GMT 10
I think that, like Altair, it's just that you hate mates.
You cannot handle the thought of a darkie being the Prez of Jesusland! This says everything about KTJ. Yeah and he's not just anti black but anti-Jewish as well. Heck I reckon he'd fit in the Alabama Klu Klux Klan quite well. Especially if he got to gloat about young girls loosing their legs in train accidents as well. Amazing how these 'tolerance thumping' lefties are such hate filled individuals isnt it? I've always noticed this about the far left they have such hate filled people in their ranks masquarading as social justice pioneers. Reckon they are sociopaths, nasty little haters looking for causes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2012 23:14:43 GMT 10
I think that, like Altair, it's just that you hate mates. You cannot handle the thought of a darkie being the Prez of Jesusland! and "Darkies" ... Didn't take long for this board to reach a new low. Yeah and it was a leftie who lead the charge in that department. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2012 1:46:34 GMT 10
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights has warned Americans not to elect Republican Mitt Romney in next month’s presidential election, saying that doing so would be “a democratic mandate for torture.” Interesting to contrast that 'outrage' and 'concern' with the usual UN hypocritical myopic nonsense, consider - www.torontosun.com/2012/07/06/syria-on-human-rights-council-a-sick-joke-bairdSyria is a candidate in the 2013 election for seats on the council.
The council condemned Syria on Friday for human rights violations, but UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer says it watered down a U.S. proposal to specifically rule out Syria's candidacy.
"We had a reference that all countries need to the meet the standards of membership, but there was no express rejection of Syria's candidacy," Neuer told QMI Agency. "At this point, the possibility that Syria will run next year is still on the table."
So the UN condemns Romney on waterboarding but thinks Syria with what it's 50,000 dead and record on torture is eligible ? Just how funny ( yet tragic ) has the UN become? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2012 1:52:19 GMT 10
And here's another gem of wisdom we should note when the UN starts fingerwagging on human rights not just towards the US but also ourselves - from www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/316466The Real Rules of the U.N. Human Rights Council
By Claudia Rosett
September 11, 2012 4:00 A.M.
The good news is that genocide-tainted Sudan has withdrawn its bid to join the United Nations Human Rights Council, a move that suggests there may actually be some outer limits to the travesties of the U.N.’s leading human-rights body. Sudan’s withdrawal appears to be due largely to a vigorous non-governmental campaign led by a Geneva-based monitoring group, UN Watch. With the help of actress Mia Farrow, UN Watch finally pressured Western officials into persuading Sudan to drop a candidacy that democracies such as the U.S. should have tried much harder to forestall in the first place.
But even without Sudan preparing to climb aboard, the Geneva-based Human Rights Council remains a grim joke. As UN Watch reminds us, “The hypocrisy-ridden council already includes such systematic abusers of human rights as China, Cuba, Russia, and Saudi Arabia,” as well as slavery-infested Mauritania.
Among that batch of human-rights abusers, most are due to rotate off the council next year. Unfortunately, they have already made their mark, in the shape of the current “reformed” council, reconstituted in 2006 out of the irredeemably rotten old Commission on Human Rights. Under council rules that allow no more than two consecutive three-year terms, China, Cuba, Russia, and Saudi Arabia must give up their seats for a year before they qualify to return.
But fresh abusers are already running, unopposed, to replace them. Two of the most high-profile are Venezuela (Iran’s chief sidekick in the Western Hemisphere) and Pakistan (a frequent shill at the U.N. for the anti-Semitic and despot-driven Organization of Islamic Cooperation). UN Watch has mounted campaigns against the candidacies of Venezuela and Pakistan; it notes that “the U.S. and other democracies, however, have yet to speak out.”
Lower-profile but also outrageous are the candidacies of Kazakhstan, Ethiopia, Côte d’Ivoire, the United Arab Emirates, and Gabon — all rated by Washington-based Freedom House as “Not Free.” If they win, they will join the other “Not Free” members of the Human Rights Council, such as current members Qatar, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Right now, it looks likely that all these human-rights violators will win. Elections to the Human Rights Council will take place on November 12 in New York, by secret ballot of the U.N.’s General Assembly — a body dominated by governments of unfree states. Blocks of seats on the 47-member Human Rights Council are allocated by geographic region; by the time some of these regions declare their candidates, the backroom deals are usually done, and the fix is in. Currently, the slates from the Latin American, African, and Asia-Pacific regions are all offering no more candidates than there are available seats. In other words, the worst candidates face no competition.
All of which brings us to the question: What, exactly, are the real qualifications for membership on the U.N. Human Rights Council?
On paper, the terms are neatly spelled out. In a resolution dated April 3, 2006, the General Assembly stipulated that even though seats on the Human Rights Council are open to all U.N. member states, the countries electing representatives should take into account, along with countries’ pledges of good behavior, “the contribution of the candidates to the promotion and protection of human rights.” Further, the General Assembly may, by a two-thirds majority of those present and voting, suspend any member of the council “that commits gross and systematic violations of human rights.”
That’s great, but it translates into almost nothing in practice. Cuba, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and Mauritania have all sat comfortably and entirely unsuspended on the council for years. Venezuela and Pakistan look like shoo-ins in the upcoming election. Evidently, there is no particular bar at the Human Rights Council to such repressive policies, in various combinations, as authoritarian or downright despotic rule, gags on free speech, religious intolerance, torture, jailing of democratic dissidents, or de facto tolerance of slavery.
Let us also recall that Libya, while still under the boot of the late Moammar Qaddafi, was swept into a seat on the Human Rights Council in 2010 with 155 votes — a landslide endorsement representing more than three-quarters of the members of the General Assembly. [/b] It was only when Libya’s people rose up against Qaddafi, in early 2011, and he threatened to kill them like rats, that the General Assembly voted to suspend Libya’s membership on the Human Rights Council. From this, can we divine the unwritten code of etiquette that determines how the U.N. decides which governments qualify for a seat on the Human Rights Council, and which do not? Sort of. In the cases of Sudan and Libya, the apparent deal breaker was flagrant genocide, or the threat thereof. Sudan’s regime has actually committed genocide; Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir is under indictment from the U.N.-engendered International Criminal Court. That didn’t stop the African Group from entering Sudan on its slate of candidates, but it seems it did ultimately render Sudan vulnerable to U.S. pressure to withdraw — once a public campaign brought enough pressure to bear on the U.S. administration. And when Qaddafi in 2011 produced his plausible threat of genocide, even the U.N. General Assembly finally decided his government wasn’t fit for full membership rights on the U.N. Human Rights Council. Even in matters such as mass murder, or threats thereof, the U.N. is slow to demonstrate moral clarity. Syria expressed an interest this year in running for the Human Rights Council. The U.S. and European Union objected, and the matter has been deferred, perhaps to next year, while Syria’s rulers, longtime tyrants, use heavy weapons against their own people and the Syrian death toll tops 20,000. And then there’s the Human Rights Council’s fixation on savaging the democratic nation of Israel. The council keeps Israel as a standing item on its agenda, targeting it for more criticism and condemnation than any other state. That entails not only an ugly anti-Semitism, but also — to put it generously — a cavalier view of Iran’s threats to wipe Israel off the map. Iran is not a member of the council, but the council serves as one of the U.N.’s most virulent clubhouses for fostering antagonisms that may yet lead to mass murder. So, what are the real clubhouse rules for joining the U.N. Human Rights Council? We can by now reasonably infer that, at least in some cases, the U.N. tends to draw the line at high-profile genocide. But that’s about it. Dictatorship, repression, bigotry, slavery — no problem. If the council can’t be reformed, then maybe in the interest of better informing the public, the U.N. could at least rewrite the official rules to reflect the monstrous realities. — Claudia Rosett is journalist-in-residence with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and heads its Investigative Reporting Project.[/blockquote]
|
|
|
|
Post by chequeredflaggg on Oct 25, 2012 5:51:26 GMT 10
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights has warned Americans not to elect Republican Mitt Romney in next month’s presidential election, saying that doing so would be “a democratic mandate for torture.” The UN’s Ben Emmerson was referring to Romney’s refusal to rule out the use of waterboarding in interrogating terror detainees, a practice that President Barack Obama has ended. Colin Perkel of The Canadian Press reported Emmerson’s remarks from a symposium in Toronto on the impact of 9/11 on human rights: "The re-introduction of torture under a Romney administration would significantly increase the threat levels to (Americans) at home and abroad," Emmerson said. "Such a policy, if adopted, would expose the American people to risks the Obama administration is not currently exposing them to." U.S. intelligence services were able to pinpoint Osama bin Laden’s location and carry out the successful mission to kill him in May 2011 based on information yielded during waterboarding of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and information from Al Qaeda operative Hassan Ghul, who was captured in Iraq in 2004. Obama opposed both waterboarding and the Iraq War, without which bin Laden would not have been found. Emmerson warned that Romney could reinstate waterboarding if he took office. He also criticized the Obama administration’s drone program--an initiative begun by the Bush administration but accelerated by President Obama, partly because of his reluctance to capture, detain or interrogate terror suspects. In a second term, Obama may renew efforts to close the Guantanámo Bay prison, despite widespread public opposition. The f#ckin UN hey?, bunch of leftoid wankers! Leftoids, and angry pouting googly -eyed jiggas in silly outfits with the worst human-rights records in humanity, looking to exploit stupid Western leftoids.. |
|
|
|
Post by chequeredflaggg on Oct 25, 2012 5:53:35 GMT 10
This was the same UN that wanted was it Libya or Iran on a UN human rights panel? LOL UN = Unmitigated nonsense. Sudan , I think it was, and they were actually chair of the Human rights committee... the whole UN GA has a record of about 70% of its condemnation resolutions being about...you know who. a liberal democracy of 5 million persons with no capital punishment statute. |
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Oct 25, 2012 5:54:36 GMT 10
Its not an ideal world, and Syria will not make the UN SC albeit they like all nations are free to apply, and very few countries are not tainted with human rights abuses, some may argue Australia's treatment of asylum seekers is a human rights abuse, and no nation should condone torture.
In that regard the US should not be rubber stamp to torture, and consider also US free trade mantra has destroyed the lives of millions of people placing them poverty.
While the UN is not perfect Israel's illegal settlements is in fact a human rights abuse yet that also is rubber stamped by the US...fair enough to be critical of the UN but take out the US and Israel are holier than thou rhetoric...that's just bullshit propaganda, enough of that already.
|
|
This says everything about KTJ.
