Human rights in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - View original article

 
Jump to: navigation, search
In 1776, Thomas Jefferson proposed a philosophy of human rights inherent to all people in the Declaration of Independence, asserting that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Historian Joseph J. Ellis calls the Declaration "the most quoted statement of human rights in recorded history".[1]

Human rights in the United States comprise a series of rights which are legally protected by the Constitution of the United States, including the amendments,[2][3] state constitutions, conferred by treaty, and enacted legislatively through Congress, state legislatures, and state referenda and citizen's initiatives. Federal courts in the United States have jurisdiction over international human rights laws as a federal question, arising under international law, which is part of the law of the United States.[4] However there have been issues with the LGBT community and their rights.

The human rights record of the United States of America is a complicated matter; first and foremost the Federal Government of the United States has, through a ratified constitution and amendments thereof, guaranteed unalienable rights to citizens of the country, and also to some degree, non-citizens. However, the historical evolution of these rights must be considered as well, as the periphery of the population of the United States who had access to these rights has expanded over time, and in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has not fully expanded complete rights to all human beings within its borders as compared to the international standard set United Nations General Assembly, due to social and political issues that stem from its history. However, being part of the Western world and having been at the forefront of human development for stretches of world history in the modern era, it does not have extended periods of en masse human rights violations within its domestic borders after the African-American Civil Rights Movement.

The continuing development of human rights in the United States and their expansion is a contentious issue; on one hand, relatively recent legislation like the PATRIOT ACT seem to give the government domain and propensity to violate rights. On the opposite end, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and federal legislation in a similar vein also intend to expand the rights guaranteed to citizens of the United States, especially with respect to the healthcare system and infrastructure.

History[edit]

The first human rights organization in the Thirteen Colonies of British America, dedicated to the abolition of slavery, was formed by Anthony Benezet in 1775. A year later, the Declaration of Independence announced that the Thirteen Colonies regarded themselves as independent states, and no longer a part of the British Empire. The second sentence of the Declaration of Independence, which has become a well-known statement on human rights, read "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."[5] This view of human liberties postulates that fundamental rights are not granted by a divine or supernatural being to monarchs who then grant them to subjects, but are granted by a divine or supernatural being to each man (but not woman) and are inalienable and inherent.[6]

After the Revolutionary War, the former thirteen colonies, free of the British monarch's claim of sovereignty, went through a pre-government phase of more than a decade, with much debate about the form of government they would have.[7] The United States Constitution, adopted in 1787 through ratification at a national convention and conventions in the colonies, created a republic that guaranteed several rights and civil liberties; the Constitution significantly referred to "Persons", not "Men" as was used in the Declaration of Independence, omitted any reference to the supernatural imagination (such as a "Creator" or "God") and any authority derived or divined therefrom, and allowed "affirmation" in lieu of an "oath" if preferred.[8] The Constitution thus eliminated any requirement of supernatural grant of human rights and provided that they belonged to all Persons (presumably meaning men and women, and perhaps children, although the developmental distinction between children and adults poses issues and has been the subject of subsequent amendments, as discussed below). Some of this conceptualization may have arisen from the significant Quaker segment of the population in the colonies, especially in the Delaware Valley, and their religious views that all human beings, regardless of sex, age, or race or other characteristics, had the same Inner light. Quaker and Quaker-derived views would have informed the drafting and ratification of the Constitution, including through the direct influence of some of the Framers of the Constitution, such as John Dickinson (politician) and Thomas Mifflin, who were either Quakers themselves or came from regions founded by or heavily populated with Quakers.[9]

Dickinson, Mifflin and other Framers who objected to slavery were outvoted on that question, however, and the original Constitution sanctioned slavery (although not based on race or other characteristic of the slave) and, through the Three-Fifths Compromise, counted slaves (who were not defined by race) as three-fifths of a Person for purposes of distribution of taxes and representation in the House of Representatives (although the slaves themselves were discriminated against in voting for such representatives). See Three-Fifths Compromise.

As the new Constitution took effect in practice, concern over individual liberties and concentration of power at the federal level, gave rise to the amendment of the Constitution through adoption of the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments of the Constitution).

Courts and legislatures also began to vary in the interpretation of "Person," with some jurisdictions narrowing the meaning of "Person" to cover only people with property, only men, or only white men. For example, although women had been voting in some states, such as New Jersey, since the founding of the United States, and prior to that in the colonial era, other states denied them the vote. In 1756 Lydia Chapin Taft voted, casting a vote in the local town hall meeting in place of her deceased husband.[10][11][12] In 1777 women lost the right to exercise their vote in New York, in 1780 women lost the right to exercise their vote in Massachusetts, and in 1784 women lost the right to exercise their vote in New Hampshire.[13] From 1775 until 1807, the state constitution in New Jersey permitted all persons worth over fifty pounds (about $7,800 adjusted for inflation, with the election laws referring to the voters as "he or she") to vote; provided they had this property, free black men and single women regardless of race therefore had the vote until 1807, but not married women, who could have no independent claim to ownership of fifty pounds (anything they owned or earned belonged to their husbands by the Common law of Coverture).[14] In 1790, the law was revised to specifically include women, but in 1807 the law was again revised to exclude them, an unconstitutional act since the state constitution specifically made any such change dependent on the general suffrage. See Women's suffrage in the United States. Through the doctrine of coverture, many states also denied married women the right to own property in their own name, although most allowed single women (widowed, divorced or never married) the "Person" status of men, sometimes pursuant to the common law concept of a femme sole. Over the years, a variety of claimants sought to assert that discrimination against women in voting, in property ownership, in occupational license, and other matters was unconstitutional given the Constitution's use of the term "Person", but the all-male courts did not give this fair hearing. See, e.g., Bradwell v. Illinois.

In the 1860s, after decades of conflict over southern states' continued practice of slavery, and northern states' outlawing it, the Civil War was fought, and in its aftermath the Constitution was amended to prohibit slavery and to prohibit states' denying rights granted in the Constitution. Among these amendments was the Fourteenth Amendment, which included an Equal Protection Clause which seemed to clarify that courts and states were prohibited in narrowing the meaning of "Persons". After the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted, Susan B. Anthony, buttressed by the equal protection language, voted. She was prosecuted for this, however, and ran into an all-male court ruling that women were not "Persons"; the court leveed a fine but it was never collected.

Martin Luther King at the 1963 Civil Rights March on Washington, D.C

Fifty years later, in 1920, the Constitution was amended again, with the Nineteenth Amendment to definitively prohibit discrimination against women's suffrage.

In the 1970s, the Burger Court made a series of rulings clarifying that discrimination against women in the status of being Persons violated the Constitution and acknowledged that previous court rulings to the contrary had been Sui generis and an abuse of power. The most often cited of these is Reed v. Reed, which held that any discrimination against either sex in the rights associated with Person status must meet a strict scrutiny standard.

The 1970s also saw the adoption of the Twenty-seventh Amendment, which prohibited discrimination on the basis of age, for Persons 18 years old and over, in voting. Other attempts to address the developmental distinction between children and adults in Person status and rights have been addressed mostly by the Supreme Court, with the Court recognizing in 2012, in Miller v. Alabama a political and biological principle that children are different from adults.

In the 20th century, the United States took a leading role in the creation of the United Nations and in the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[15] Much of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was modeled in part on the U.S. Bill of Rights.[16] Even as such, the United States is in violation of the Declaration, in as much that "everyone has the right to leave any country" because the government may prevent the entry and exit of anyone from the United States for foreign policy, national security, or child support rearage reasons by revoking their passport.[17] The United States is also in violation of the United Nations' human rights Convention on the Rights of the Child which requires both parents to have a relationship with the child. Conflict between the human rights of the child and those of a mother or father who wishes to leave the country without paying child support or doing the personal work of child care for his child can be considered to be a question of Negative and positive rights.

Legal framework[edit]

Original page of the United States Constitution

Domestic legal protection structure[edit]

According to Human Rights: The Essential Reference, "the American Declaration of Independence was the first civic document that met a modern definition of human rights."[18] The Constitution recognizes a number of inalienable human rights, including freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, and the right to a fair trial by jury.[19]

Constitutional amendments have been enacted as the needs of the society evolved. The Ninth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment recognize that not all human rights have yet been enumerated. The Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act are examples of human rights that were enumerated by Congress well after the Constitution's writing. The scope of the legal protections of human rights afforded by the US government is defined by case law, particularly by the precedent of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Within the federal government, the debate about what may or may not be an emerging human right is held in two forums: the United States Congress, which may enumerate these; and the Supreme Court, which may articulate rights that the law does not spell out. Additionally, individual states, through court action or legislation, have often protected human rights not recognized at federal level. For example, Massachusetts was the first of several states to recognize same sex marriage.[20]

Effect of international treaties[edit]

In the context of human rights and treaties that recognize or create individual rights, there are self-executing and non-self-executing treaties. Non-self-executing treaties, which ascribe rights that under the Constitution may be assigned by law, require legislative action to execute the contract (treaty) before it can apply to law.[21] There are also cases that explicitly require legislative approval according to the Constitution, such as cases that could commit the U.S. to declare war or appropriate funds.

Treaties regarding human rights, which create a duty to refrain from acting in a particular manner or confer specific rights, are generally held to be self-executing, requiring no further legislative action. In cases where legislative bodies refuse to recognize otherwise self-executing treaties by declaring them to be non-self-executing in an act of legislative non-recognition, constitutional scholars argue that such acts violate the separation of powers—in cases of controversy, the judiciary, not Congress, has the authority under Article III to apply treaty law to cases before the court. This is a key provision in cases where the Congress declares a human rights treaty to be non-self-executing, for example, by contending it does not add anything to human rights under U.S. domestic law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is one such case, which, while ratified after more than two decades of inaction, was done so with reservations, understandings, and declarations.[22]

Equality[edit]

Racial[edit]

Lyndon B. Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the first comprehensive legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race and national origin in the workplace in a major industrialized country. Among the guests behind him is Martin Luther King, Jr.

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."[23] In addition, Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the denial of a citizen of the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude".

The United States was the first major industrialized country to enact comprehensive legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race and national origin in the workplace in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA),[24] while most of the world contains no such recourse for job discrimination.[25] The CRA is perhaps the most prominent civil rights legislation enacted in modern times, has served as a model for subsequent anti-discrimination laws and has greatly expanded civil rights protections in a wide variety of settings.[26] The United States' 1991 provision of recourse for victims of such discrimination for punitive damages and full back pay has virtually no parallel in the legal systems of any other nation.[25]

In addition to individual civil recourse, the United States possesses anti-discrimination government enforcement bodies, such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, while only the United Kingdom and Ireland possess faintly analogous bureaucracies.[25] Beginning in 1965, the United States also began a program of affirmative action that not only obliges employers not to discriminate, but requires them to provide preferences for groups protected under the Civil Rights Act to increase their numbers where they are judged to be underrepresented.[27]

Such affirmative action programs are also applied in college admissions.[27] The United States also prohibits the imposition of any "...voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure ... to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color," which prevents the use of grandfather clauses, literacy tests, poll taxes and white primaries.

abolitionist Anthony Benezet and others formed the first human rights nongovernmental organization in the U.S. This image was used as a symbol for their cause.[28][29]

Prior to the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, slavery was legal in some states of the United States until 1865.[30] Influenced by the principles of the Religious Society of Friends, Anthony Benezet formed the Pennsylvania Abolition Society in 1775, believing that all ethnic groups were considered equal and that human slavery was incompatible with Christian beliefs. Benezet extended the recognition of human rights to Native Americans and he argued for a peaceful solution to the violence between the Native and European Americans. Benjamin Franklin became the president of Benezet's abolition society in the late 18th century. In addition, the Fourteenth Amendment was interpreted to permit what was termed Separate but equal treatment of minorities until the United States Supreme Court overturned this interpretation in 1954, which consequently overturned Jim Crow laws.[31][32] Native Americans did not have citizenship rights until the Dawes Act of 1887 and the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

Following the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama was sworn in as the first African-American president of the United States on January 20, 2009.[33] In his Inaugural Address, President Obama stated "A man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath....So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled".[33]

Gender[edit]

U.S. women suffragists demonstrating for the right to vote, February 1913

The Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the states and the federal government from denying any citizen the right to vote because of that citizen's sex.[34] While this does not necessarily guarantee all women the right to vote, as suffrage qualifications are determined by individual states, it does mean that states' suffrage qualifications may not prevent women from voting due to their gender.[34]

The United States was the first major industrialized country to enact comprehensive CRA legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender in the workplace[24] while most of the world contains no such recourse for job discrimination.[25] The United States' 1991 provision of recourse for discrimination victims for punitive damages and full back pay has virtually no parallel in the legal systems of any other nation.[25] In addition to individual civil recourse, the United States possesses anti-discrimination government enforcement bodies, such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, while only the United Kingdom and Ireland possess faintly analogous bureaucracies.[25] Beginning in 1965, the United States also began a program of affirmative action that not only obliges employers not to discriminate, but also requires them to provide preferences for groups protected under the CRA to increase their numbers where they are judged to be underrepresented.[27] Such affirmative action programs are also applied in college admissions.[27]

The United States was also the first country to legally define sexual harassment in the workplace.[35] Because sexual harassment is therefore a Civil Rights violation, individual legal rights of those harassed in the workplace are comparably stronger in the United States than in most European countries.[35][36] The Selective Service System does not require women to register for a possible military draft[37] and the United States military does not permit women to serve in some front-line combat units.

Disability[edit]

The United States was the first country in the world to adopt sweeping antidiscrimination legislation for people with disabilities, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).[38] The ADA reflected a dramatic shift toward the employment of persons with disabilities to enhance the labor force participation of qualified persons with disabilities and in reducing their dependence on government entitlement programs.[39] The ADA amends the CRA and permits plaintiffs to recover punitive damages.[40] The ADA has been instrumental in the evolution of disability discrimination law in many countries, and has had such an enormous impact on foreign law development that its international impact may be even larger than its domestic impact.[41] Although ADA Title I was found to be unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has extended the protection to people with Acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).[42]

It is important to note that federal benefits such as Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) are often administratively viewed in the United States as being primarily or near-exclusively the entitlement only of impoverished U.S. people with disabilities, and not applicable to those with disabilities who make significantly above-poverty level income. This is proven in practice by the general fact that in the U.S., a disabled person on SSI without significant employment income who is suddenly employed, with a salary or wage at or above the living wage threshold, often discovers that government benefits they were previously entitled to have ceased, because supposedly the new job "invalidates" the need for this assistance. The U.S. is the only industrialized country in the world to have this particular approach to physical disability assistance programming.

Sexual orientation[edit]

The Constitution of the United States explicitly recognizes certain individual rights. The 14th Amendment has several times been interpreted using the living constitution doctrine, for example, civil rights for people of color, disability rights, and women's rights were long unrecognized. There may exist additional gender-related civil rights that are presently not recognized by US law but it does not explicitly state any sexual orientation rights. Some states have recognized sexual orientation rights, which are discussed below.

The United States Federal Government does not have any substantial body of law relating to marriage; these laws have developed separately within each state. The Full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution ordinarily guarantees the recognition of a marriage performed in one state by another. However, the Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996,[43] which affirmed that no state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state. It also stated that the Federal Government was unable to recognize same-sex marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states, this was ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court in the United States v. Windsor case. The US Constitution does not grant the federal government any authority to limit state recognition of sexual orientation rights or protections. DOMA only limits the interstate recognition of individual state laws and does not limit state law in any way. DOMA (section 3) has been ruled to be unconstitutional by various US federal courts for violating the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution (specifically its due process and equal protection clauses) and was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States.

State laws[edit]

Laws regarding same-sex partnerships in the United States*
  Same-sex marriage1
  Unions granting rights similar to marriage2
  Legislation granting limited/enumerated rights
  Same-sex marriages performed elsewhere recognized
  No specific prohibition or recognition of same-sex marriages or unions in territory law
  State statute bans same-sex marriage
  State constitution bans same-sex marriage3
  State constitution bans same-sex marriage and some or all other kinds of same-sex unions4

*Same-sex marriages are recognized for federal purposes (by place-of-celebration or place-of-domicile) per United States v. Windsor.
1Law in Illinois takes effect June 1, 2014. Eight Native American tribal jurisdictions also allow same-sex marriage.
2Applies only to state-level benefits, federal benefits are excluded.
3Civil unions are administered at the city level in Arizona. Missouri allows same-sex couples to file state taxes jointly, but does not recognize them as married.
4In Ohio, a federal judge has recognized out-of-state marriages.

Wisconsin was the first state to pass a law explicitly prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.[44] There are also many other states that have passed laws to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In 1996, Hawaii ruled same-sex marriage is a Hawaiian constitutional right.[citation needed] Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Washington, New Jersey, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Utah, Minnesota, Rhode Island, New Mexico, Hawaii, and California are the only states that allow same-sex marriage. Washington D.C. also allows same-sex couples to marry. Oregon recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. Ohio recognizes out-of-state marriages for death certificate purposes only. The Governor of Missouri announced he would sign an executive order to allow same-sex couples married in other jurisdictions to file joint state income taxes if they file joint federal returns.[45] In Illinois, A federal judge ordered that a female same-sex couple be able to get married because one of them is terminally ill. Another federal judge ruled that same-sex couples be allowed to marry if one of them is terminally ill.[46] Illinois has already legalized same-sex marriage but it hasn't gone into effect yet. Same sex marriage rights were established by the California Supreme Court in 2008, and over 18,000 same-sex couples were married. In November 2008 voters passed Proposition 8, amending the state constitution to deny same-sex couples marriage rights, which was upheld in a May 2009 decision that also allowed existing same-sex marriages to stand. Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Hollingsworth v. Perry case and same sex marriage is now legal in California [47][48] New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Colorado and a few cities in the state of Arizona offer Civil Unions for same-sex couples.

Tribal laws[edit]

There are 8 Tribal Nations that legally recognize same-sex marriage. The following nations that recognize same-sex marriage are The Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, The Coquille Tribe, The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, The Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, The Santa Ysabel Tribe, The Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe and The Suquamish tribe.

Privacy[edit]

Privacy is not explicitly stated in the United States Constitution. In the Griswold v. Connecticut case, the Supreme Court ruled that it is implied in the Constitution. In the Roe v. Wade case, the Supreme Court used privacy rights to overturn most laws against abortion in the United States. In the Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health case, the Supreme Court held that the patient had a right of privacy to terminate medical treatment. In Gonzales v. Oregon, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Controlled Substances Act can not prohibit physician-assisted suicide allowed by the Oregon Death with Dignity Act. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of criminalizing oral and anal sex in the Bowers v. Hardwick 478 U.S. 186 (1986) decision; however, it overturned the decision in the Lawrence v. Texas 539 U.S. 558 (2003) case and established the protection to sexual privacy.

Accused[edit]

The United States maintains a presumption of innocence in legal procedures. The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution deals with the rights of criminal suspects. Later the protection was extended to civil cases as well[49] In the Gideon v. Wainwright case, the Supreme Court requires that indigent criminal defendants who are unable to afford their own attorney be provided counsel at trial. Since the Miranda v. Arizona case, the United States requires police departments to inform arrested persons of their rights, which is later called Miranda warning and typically begins with "You have the right to remain silent."

Freedoms[edit]

Freedom of religion[edit]

The establishment clause of the first amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress or the preference of one religion over another. The clause was used to limit school praying, beginning with Engel v. Vitale, which ruled government-led prayer unconstitutional. Wallace v. Jaffree banned moments of silence allocated for praying. The Supreme Court also ruled clergy-led prayer at public high school graduations unconstitutional with Lee v. Weisman.

The free exercise clause guarantees the free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court's Lemon v. Kurtzman decision established the "Lemon test" exception, which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. The Employment Division v. Smith decision, the Supreme Court maintained a "neutral law of general applicability" can be used to limit religion exercises. In the City of Boerne v. Flores decision, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was struck down as exceeding congressional power; however, the decision's effect is limited by the Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal decision, which requires states to express compelling interest in prohibiting illegal drug use in religious practices.

Freedom of expression[edit]

The Four Freedoms are derived from the 1941 State of the Union Address by United States President Franklin Roosevelt delivered to the 77th United States Congress on January 6, 1941. The theme was incorporated into the Atlantic Charter, and it became part of the charter of the United Nations[50] and appears in the preamble of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

The United States, like other liberal democracies, is supposed to be a constitutional republic based on founding documents that restrict the power of government to preserve the liberty of the people. The freedom of expression (including speech, media, and public assembly) is an important right and is given special protection, as declared by the First Amendment of the constitution. According to Supreme Court precedent, the federal and lower governments may not apply prior restraint to expression, with certain exceptions, such as national security and obscenity. Legal limits on expression include:

Some laws remain controversial due to concerns that they infringe on freedom of expression. These include the Digital Millennium Copyright Act[54] and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.[55]

In two high profile cases, grand juries have decided that Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller must reveal their sources in cases involving CIA leaks. Time magazine exhausted its legal appeals, and Mr. Cooper eventually agreed to testify. Miller was jailed for 85 days before cooperating. U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan ruled that the First Amendment does not insulate Time magazine reporters from a requirement to testify before a criminal grand jury that's conducting the investigation into the possible illegal disclosure of classified information.

Approximately 30,000 government employees and contractors are currently employed to monitor telephone calls and other communications.[56]

In November 2013, leaked documents revealed that the government and some large corporations had censored many blogs and news articles using existing surveillance programs.

Right to peaceably assemble[edit]

Although Americans are supposed to enjoy the freedom to peacefully protest, protesters are sometimes mistreated, beaten, arrested, jailed or fired upon.

On February 19, 2011, Ray McGovern was dragged out of a speech by Hillary Clinton on Internet freedom, in which she said that people should be free to protest without fear of violence. McGovern, who was wearing a Veterans for Peace t-shirt, stood up during the speech and silently turned his back on Clinton. He was then assaulted by undercover and uniformed police, roughed up, handcuffed and jailed. He suffered bruises and lacerations in the attack and required medical treatment.[57]

Protesters have also been arrested for protesting outside of designated “free speech zones”.[58] At the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City, over 1,700 protesters were arrested.[59]

On May 4, 1970, Ohio National Guardsmen opened fire on protesting students at Kent State University, killing four students. Investigators determined that 28 Guardsmen fired 61 to 67 shots. The Justice Department concluded that the Guardsmen were not in danger and that their claim that they fired in self-defense was untrue. The nearest student was almost 100 yards away at the time of the shooting.[60]

On March 7, 1965, approximately 600 civil rights marchers were violently dispersed by state and local police near the Edmund Pettus Bridge outside of Selma, Alabama.[61]

In June 2009, the ACLU asked the Department of Defense to stop categorizing political protests as "low-level terrorism" in their training courses.[62]

During the fall of 2011, large numbers of protesters taking part in the "Occupy movement" in cities around the country were arrested on various charges during protests for economic and political reforms.[63]

Freedom of movement[edit]

As per § 707(b) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1979,[64] United States passports are required to enter and exit the country, and as per the Passport Act of 1926 and Haig v. Agee, the Presidential administration may deny or revoke passports for foreign policy or national security reasons at any time. Perhaps the most notable example of enforcement of this ability was the 1948 denial of a passport to U.S. Representative Leo Isacson, who sought to go to Paris to attend a conference as an observer for the American Council for a Democratic Greece, a Communist front organization, because of the group's role in opposing the Greek government in the Greek Civil War.[65][66]

The United States prevents U.S. citizens to travel to Cuba, citing national security reasons, as part of an embargo against Cuba that has been condemned as an illegal act by the United Nations General Assembly.[67] The current exception to the ban on travel to the island, permitted since April 2009, has been an easing of travel restrictions for Cuban-Americans visiting their relatives. Restrictions continue to remain in place for the rest of the American populace.[68]

On June 30, 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of ten people who are either U.S. citizens or legal residents of the U.S., challenging the constitutionality of the government's "no-fly" list. The plaintiffs have not been told why they are on the list. Five of the plaintiffs have been stranded abroad. It is estimated that the "no-fly" list contained about 8,000 names at the time of the lawsuit.[69]

The Secretary of State can deny a passport to anyone imprisoned, on parole, or on supervised release for a conviction for international drug trafficking or sex tourism, or to anyone who is behind on their child support payments.[70]

The following case precedents are typically cited in defense of unencumbered travel within the United States:

"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 337 Ill. 200; 169 N.E. 22 (1929).

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, Supreme Court of Virginia, 155 Va. 367; 154 S.E. 579; (1930).

"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to move from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." Schactman v. Dulles, 225 F.2d 938; 96 U.S. App. D.C. 287 (1955).

"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 225 F.2d 938; 96 U.S. App. D.C. 287 (1955) at 941.

"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125 (1958).

Freedom of association[edit]

Freedom of association is the right of individuals to come together in groups for political action or to pursue common interests.

Freedom of association in the U.S. is restricted by the Smith Act, which bans political parties that advocate the violent overthrow of the U.S. government.[51]

Between 1956 and 1971, the FBI attempted to "expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize" radical groups through the COINTELPRO program.[71]

In 2008, the Maryland State Police admitted that they had added the names of Iraq War protesters and death penalty opponents to a terrorist database. They also admitted that other "protest groups" were added to the terrorist database, but did not specify which groups. It was also discovered that undercover troopers used aliases to infiltrate organizational meetings, rallies and group e-mail lists. Police admitted there was "no evidence whatsoever of any involvement in violent crime" by those classified as terrorists.[72]

National security exceptions[edit]

The United States government has declared martial law,[73] suspended (or claimed exceptions to) some rights on national security grounds, typically in wartime and conflicts such as the United States Civil War,[73][74] Cold War or the War against Terror.[74] 70,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry were legally interned during World War II under Executive Order 9066. In some instances the federal courts have allowed these exceptions, while in others the courts have decided that the national security interest was insufficient. Presidents Lincoln, Wilson, and F.D. Roosevelt ignored such judicial decisions.[74]

Historical restrictions[edit]

Sedition laws have sometimes placed restrictions on freedom of expression. The Alien and Sedition Acts, passed by President John Adams during an undeclared naval conflict with France, allowed the government to punish "false" statements about the government and to deport "dangerous" immigrants. The Federalist Party used these acts to harass supporters of the Democratic-Republican Party. While Woodrow Wilson was president, another broad sedition law called the Sedition Act of 1918, was passed during World War I. It also caused the arrest and ten-year sentencing of Socialist Party of America Presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs for speaking out against the atrocities of World War I, although he was later released early by President Warren G. Harding. Countless others, labeled as "subverts" (especially the Wobblies), were investigated by the Woodrow Wilson Administration.

Presidents have claimed the power to imprison summarily, under military jurisdiction, those suspected of being combatants for states or groups at war against the United States. Abraham Lincoln invoked this power in the American Civil War to imprison Maryland secessionists. In that case, the Supreme Court concluded that only Congress could suspend the writ of habeas corpus, and the government released the detainees. During World War II, the United States interned thousands of Japanese-Americans on alleged fears that Japan might use them as saboteurs.

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution forbids unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant, but some administrations have claimed exceptions to this rule to investigate alleged conspiracies against the government. During the Cold War, the Federal Bureau of Investigation established COINTELPRO to infiltrate and disrupt left-wing organizations, including those that supported the rights of black Americans.

National security, as well as other concerns like unemployment, has sometimes led the United States to toughen its generally liberal immigration policy. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 all but banned Chinese immigrants, who were accused of crowding out American workers.

Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative[edit]

The federal government has set up a data collection and storage network that keeps a wide variety of data on tens of thousands of Americans who have not been accused of committing a crime. Operated primarily under the direction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the program is known as the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative or SAR. Reports of suspicious behavior noticed by local law enforcement or by private citizens are forwarded to the program, and profiles are constructed of the persons under suspicion.[75] see also Fusion Center.

Labor rights[edit]

Labor rights in the United States have been linked to basic constitutional rights.[76] Comporting with the notion of creating an economy based upon highly skilled and high wage labor employed in a capital-intensive dynamic growth economy, the United States enacted laws mandating the right to a safe workplace, Workers compensation, Unemployment insurance, fair labor standards, collective bargaining rights, Social Security, along with laws prohibiting child labor and guaranteeing a minimum wage.[77] While U.S. workers tend to work longer hours than other industrialized nations, lower taxes and more benefits give them a larger disposable income than those of most industrialized nations, however the advantage of lower taxes have been challenged. See: Disposable and discretionary income. U.S. workers are among the most productive in the world.[78] During the 19th and 20th centuries, safer conditions and workers' rights were gradually mandated by law.[79]

In 1935, the National Labor Relations Act recognized and protected "the rights of most workers in the private sector to organize labor unions, to engage in collective bargaining, and to take part in strikes and other forms of concerted activity in support of their demands." However, many states hold to the principle of at-will employment, which says an employee can be fired for any or no reason, without warning and without recourse, unless violation of State or Federal civil rights laws can be proven. In 2011, 11.8% of U.S. workers were members of labor unions[80] with 37% of public sector (government) workers in unions while only 6.9% of private sector workers were union members.[81]

Health care[edit]

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, states that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care.”[82] In addition, the Principles of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association require medical doctors to respect the human rights of the patient, including that of providing medical treatment when it is needed.[83] Americans' rights in health care are regulated by the US Patients' Bill of Rights.[citation needed]

Unlike most other industrialized nations, the United States does not offer most of its citizens subsidized health care. The United States Medicaid program provides subsidized coverage to some categories of individuals and families with low incomes and resources, including children, pregnant women, and very low-income people with disabilities (higher-earning people with disabilities do not qualify for Medicaid, although they do qualify for Medicare). However, according to Medicaid's own documents, "the Medicaid program does not provide health care services, even for very poor persons, unless they are in one of the designated eligibility groups."[84]

Nonetheless, some states offer subsidized health insurance to broader populations. Coverage is subsidized for persons age 65 and over, or who meet other special criteria through Medicare. Every person with a permanent disability, both young and old, is inherently entitled to Medicare health benefits — a fact not all disabled US citizens are aware of. However, just like every other Medicare recipient, a disabled person finds that his or her Medicare benefits only cover up to 80% of what the insurer considers reasonable charges in the U.S. medical system, and that the other 20% plus the difference in the reasonable amount and the actual charge must be paid by other means (typically supplemental, privately held insurance plans, or cash out of the person's own pocket). Therefore, even the Medicare program is not truly national health insurance or universal health care the way most of the rest of the industrialized world understands it.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986, an unfunded mandate, mandates that no person may ever be denied emergency services regardless of ability to pay, citizenship, or immigration status.[85] The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act has been criticized by the American College of Emergency Physicians as an unfunded mandate.[86][87]

46.6 million residents, or 15.9 percent, were without health insurance coverage in 2005.[88] This number includes about ten million non-citizens, millions more who are eligible for Medicaid but never applied, and 18 million with annual household incomes above $50,000.[89] According to a study led by the Johns Hopkins Children's Center, uninsured children who are hospitalized are 60% more likely to die than children who are covered by health insurance.[90]

Justice system[edit]

The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighteenth Amendments of the Bill of Rights, along with the Fourteenth Amendment, ensure that criminal defendants have significant procedural rights that are unsurpassed by any other justice system.[91] The Fourteenth Amendment's incorporation of due process rights adds these constitutional protections to the state and local levels of law enforcement.[91] Similarly, the United States possesses a system of judicial review over government action more powerful than any other in the world.[92]

Death penalty[edit]

The United States was the only country in the G8 to have carried out executions in 2011. Three countries in the G20 carried out executions in 2011: China, Saudi Arabia and the United States. The United States and Belarus were the only two of the 56 Member States of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to have carried out executions in 2011.[93]

Capital punishment is controversial. Death penalty opponents regard the death penalty as inhumane[94] and criticize it for its irreversibility[95] and assert that it lacks a deterrent effect,[96] as have several studies[97][98] and debunking studies that claim to show a deterrent effect.[99] According to Amnesty International, "the death penalty is the ultimate, irreversible denial of human rights."[95]

The 1972 US Supreme Court case Furman v. Georgia 408 U.S. 238 (1972) held that arbitrary imposition of the death penalty at the states' discretion constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In California v. Anderson 64 Cal.2d 633, 414 P.2d 366 (Cal. 1972), the Supreme Court of California classified capital punishment as cruel and unusual and outlawed the use of capital punishment in California, until it was reinstated in 1976 after the federal supreme court rulings Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976), and Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 (1976).[100] As of January 25, 2008, the death penalty has been abolished in the District of Columbia and fourteen states, mainly in the Northeast and Midwest.[101]

The UN special rapporteur recommended to a committee of the UN General Assembly that the United States be found to be in violation of Article 6 the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in regards to the death penalty in 1998, and called for an immediate capital punishment moratorium.[102] The recommendation of the special rapporteur is not legally binding under international law, and in this case the UN did not act upon the lawyer's recommendation.

Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976 there have been 1077 executions in the United States (as of May 23, 2007).[103] There were 53 executions in 2006.[104] Texas overwhelmingly leads the United States in executions, with 379 executions from 1976 to 2006;[105] the second-highest ranking state is Virginia, with 98 executions.[106]

A ruling on March 1, 2005, by the Supreme Court in Roper v. Simmons prohibits the execution of people who committed their crimes when they were under the age of 18.[107] Between 1990 and 2005, Amnesty International recorded 19 executions in the United States for crime committed by a juvenile.[108]

It is the official policy of the European Union and a number of non-EU nations to achieve global abolition of the death penalty. For this reason the EU is vocal in its criticism of the death penalty in the US and has submitted amicus curiae briefs in a number of important US court cases related to capital punishment.[109] The American Bar Association also sponsors a project aimed at abolishing the death penalty in the United States,[110] stating as among the reasons for their opposition that the US continues to execute minors and the mentally retarded, and fails to protect adequately the rights of the innocent.[111]

Some opponents criticize the over-representation of blacks on death row as evidence of the unequal racial application of the death penalty. This over-representation is not limited to capital offenses, in 1992 although blacks account for 12% of the US population, about 34 percent of prison inmates were from this group.[112] In McCleskey v. Kemp, it was alleged the capital sentencing process was administered in a racially discriminatory manner in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In 2003, Amnesty International reported those who kill whites are more likely to be executed than those who kill blacks, citing of the 845 people executed since 1977, 80 percent were put to death for killing whites and 13 percent were executed for killing blacks, even though blacks and whites are murdered in almost equal numbers.[113]

Prison system[edit]

1912 illustration of an inmate being punished in an American prison

The United States is seen by social critics,[114] including international and domestic human rights groups and civil rights organizations, as a state that violates fundamental human rights, because of disproportionately heavy, in comparison with other countries, reliance on crime control, individual behavior control (civil liberties), and societal control of disadvantaged groups through a harsh police and criminal justice system. The U.S. penal system is implemented on the federal, and in particular on the state and local levels. This social policy has resulted in a high rate of incarceration, which affects Americans from the lowest socioeconomic backgrounds and racial minorities the hardest.[115][116]

Some have criticized the United States for having an extremely large prison population, where there have been reported abuses.[117] As of 2004 the United States had the highest percentage of people in prison of any nation. There were more than 2.2 million in prisons or jails, or 737 per 100,000 population, or roughly 1 out of every 136 Americans. According to The National Council on Crime and Delinquency, since 1990 the incarceration of youth in adult jails has increased 208%.[118] In some states youth - juvenile is defined as young as 13 years old. The researchers for this report found that Juveniles often were incarcerated to await trial for up to two years and subjected to the same treatment of mainstream inmates. The incarcerated adolescent is often subjected to a highly traumatic environment during this developmental stage. The long term effects are often irreversible and detrimental.[119] "Human Rights Watch believes the extraordinary rate of incarceration in the United States wreaks havoc on individuals, families and communities, and saps the strength of the nation as a whole."[120]

Examples of mistreatment claimed include prisoners left naked and exposed in harsh weather or cold air;[121] "routine" use of rubber bullets[122] and pepper spray;,[121][122][122] solitary confinement of violent prisoners in soundproofed cells for 23 or 24 hours a day;[121][123] and a range of injuries from serious injury to fatal gunshot wounds, with force at one California prison "often vastly disproportionate to the actual need or risk that prison staff faced."[122] Such behaviors are illegal, and, "Professional standards clearly limit staff use of force to that which is necessary to control prisoner disorder."[122]

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture, Juan E. Méndez, has requested that the United States stop holding prisoners in solitary confinement as "it often causes mental and physical suffering or humiliation, amounting to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and if the resulting pain or sufferings are severe, solitary confinement even amounts to torture.” The U.N. estimates there are about 80,000 prisoners in solitary confinement in the U.S., and 12,000 of those are in California.[124] Two prisoners at the Angola prison in Louisiana, Herman Wallace and Albert Woodfox, have each spent more than 40 years in solitary confinement.[125]

Human Rights Watch raised concerns with prisoner rape and medical care for inmates.[126] In a survey of 1,788 male inmates in Midwestern prisons by Prison Journal, about 21% claimed they had been coerced or pressured into sexual activity during their incarceration and 7% claimed that they had been raped in their current facility.[127] Tolerance of serious sexual abuse and rape in United States prisons are consistently reported as widespread.[citation needed] It has been fought against by organizations such as Stop Prisoner Rape.

The United States has been criticized for having a high amount of non-violent and victim-less offenders incarcerated,[120][128][129] as half of all persons incarcerated under State jurisdiction are for non-violent offences and 20 percent are incarcerated for drug offences, mostly for possession of cannabis.[130][131]

The United States is the only country in the world allowing sentencing of young adolescents to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. There are currently 73 Americans serving such sentences for crimes they committed at the age of 13 or 14. In December 2006 the United Nations took up a resolution calling for the abolition of this kind of punishment for children and young teenagers. 185 countries voted for the resolution and only the United States against.[12]

Police brutality[edit]

In a 1999 report, Amnesty International said it had "documented patterns of ill-treatment across the U.S., including police beatings, unjustified shootings and the use of dangerous restraint techniques."[132] According to a 1998 Human Rights Watch report, incidents of police use of excessive force had occurred in cities throughout the U.S., and this behavior goes largely unchecked.[133] An article in USA Today reports that in 2006, 96% of cases referred to the U.S. Justice Department for prosecution by investigative agencies were declined. In 2005, 98% were declined.[134] In 2001, the New York Times reported that the U.S. government is unable or unwilling to collect statistics showing the precise number of people killed by the police or the prevalence of the use of excessive force.[135] Since 1999, at least 148 people have died in the United States and Canada after being shocked with Tasers by police officers, according to a 2005 ACLU report.[136] In one case, a handcuffed suspect was tasered nine times by a police officer before dying, and six of those taserings occurred within less than three minutes. The officer was fired and faced the possibility of criminal charges.[137]

Strip searches and cavity searches[edit]

The procedural use of strip searches and cavity searches by law enforcement agencies and in the prison system has raised human rights concerns.[138][139][140][141]

War on Terrorism[edit]

Inhumane treatment and torture of captured non-citizens[edit]

International and U.S. law prohibits torture and other ill-treatment of any person in custody in all circumstances.[142] However, the United States Government has categorized a large number of people as unlawful combatants, a United States classification used mainly as an excuse to bypass international law, which denies the privileges of prisoner of war (POW) designation of the Geneva Conventions.[143]

Certain practices of the United States military and Central Intelligence Agency have been condemned by some sources domestically and internationally as torture.[144][145] A fierce debate regarding non-standard interrogation techniques[146] exists within the US civilian and military intelligence community, with no general consensus as to what practices under what conditions are acceptable.

Abuse of prisoners is considered a crime in the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice. According to a January 2006 Human Rights First report, there were 45 suspected or confirmed homicides while in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan; "Certainly 8, as many as 12, people were tortured to death."[147]

Abu Ghraib prison abuse[edit]

Detainees is handcuffed in the nude to a bed and has a pair of panties covering his face.

In 2004, photos showing humiliation and abuse of prisoners were leaked from Abu Ghraib prison, causing a political and media scandal in the US. Forced humiliation of the detainees included, but is not limited to nudity, rape, human piling of nude detainees, masturbation, eating food out of toilets, crawling on hand and knees while American soldiers were sitting on their back sometimes requiring them to bark like dogs, and hooking up electrical wires to fingers, toes, and penises.[148] Bertrand Ramcharan, acting UN High Commissioner for Human Rights stated that while the removal of Saddam Hussein represented "a major contribution to human rights in Iraq" and that the United States had condemned the conduct at Abu Ghraib and pledged to bring violators to justice, "willful killing, torture and inhuman treatment" represented a grave breach of international law and "might be designated as war crimes by a competent tribunal."[149]

In addition to the acts of humiliation, there were more violent claims, such as American soldiers sodomizing detainees (including an event involving an underage boy), an incident where a phosphoric light was broken and the chemicals poured on a detainee, repeated beatings, and threats of death.[148] Six military personnel were charged with prisoner abuse in the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal. The harshest sentence was handed out to Charles Graner, who received a 10-year sentence to be served in a military prison and a demotion to private; the other offenders received lesser sentences.[150]

In their report The Road to Abu Ghraib, Human Rights Watch describe how:

The severest abuses at Abu Ghraib occurred in the immediate aftermath of a decision by Secretary Rumsfeld to step up the hunt for "actionable intelligence" among Iraqi prisoners. The officer who oversaw intelligence gathering at Guantanamo was brought in to overhaul interrogation practices in Iraq, and teams of interrogators from Guantanamo were sent to Abu Ghraib. The commanding general in Iraq issued orders to "manipulate an internee's emotions and weaknesses." Military police were ordered by military intelligence to "set physical and mental conditions for favorable interrogation of witnesses." The captain who oversaw interrogations at the Afghan detention center where two prisoners died in detention posted "Interrogation Rules of Engagement" at Abu Ghraib, authorizing coercive methods (with prior written approval of the military commander) such as the use of military guard dogs to instill fear that violate the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman Degrading Treatment or Punishment.[151]

Enhanced interrogation and waterboarding[edit]

On February 6, 2008, the CIA director General Michael Hayden stated that the CIA had used waterboarding on three prisoners during 2002 and 2003, namely Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Abu Zubayda and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.[152][153]

The June 21, 2004, issue of Newsweek stated that the Bybee memo, a 2002 legal memorandum drafted by former OLC lawyer John Yoo that described what sort of interrogation tactics against suspected terrorists or terrorist affiliates the Bush administration would consider legal, was "...prompted by CIA questions about what to do with a top Qaeda captive, Abu Zubaydah, who had turned uncooperative ... and was drafted after White House meetings convened by George W. Bush's chief counsel, Alberto Gonzales, along with Defense Department general counsel William Haynes and David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's counsel, who discussed specific interrogation techniques," citing "a source familiar with the discussions." Amongst the methods they found acceptable was waterboarding.[154]

In November 2005, ABC News reported that former CIA agents claimed that the CIA engaged in a modern form of waterboarding, along with five other "enhanced interrogation techniques", against suspected members of al Qaeda.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, stated on the subject of waterboarding "I would have no problems with describing this practice as falling under the prohibition of torture," and that violators of the UN Convention Against Torture should be prosecuted under the principle of universal jurisdiction.[155]

Bent Sørensen, Senior Medical Consultant to the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims and former member of the United Nations Committee Against Torture has said:

It’s a clear-cut case: Waterboarding can without any reservation be labeled as torture. It fulfils all of the four central criteria that according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) defines an act of torture. First, when water is forced into your lungs in this fashion, in addition to the pain you are likely to experience an immediate and extreme fear of death. You may even suffer a heart attack from the stress or damage to the lungs and brain from inhalation of water and oxygen deprivation. In other words there is no doubt that waterboarding causes severe physical and/or mental suffering – one central element in the UNCAT’s definition of torture. In addition the CIA’s waterboarding clearly fulfills the three additional definition criteria stated in the Convention for a deed to be labeled torture, since it is 1) done intentionally, 2) for a specific purpose and 3) by a representative of a state – in this case the US.[156]

Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, concurred by stating, in a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, that he believes waterboarding violates Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.[157]

The CIA director testified that waterboarding has not been used since 2003.[158]

In April 2009, the Obama administration released four memos in which government lawyers from the Bush administration approved tough interrogation methods used against 28 terror suspects. The rough tactics range from waterboarding (simulated drowning) to keeping suspects naked and denying them solid food.[159]

These memos were accompanied by the Justice Department's release of four Bush-era legal opinions covering (in graphic and extensive detail) the interrogation of 14 high-value terror detainees using harsh techniques beyond waterboarding. These additional techniques include keeping detainees in a painful standing position for long periods (Used often, once for 180 hours),[160] using a plastic neck collar to slam detainees into walls, keeping the detainee's cell cold for long periods, beating and kicking the detainee, insects placed in a confinement box (the suspect had a fear of insects), sleep-deprivation, prolonged shackling, and threats to a detainee's family. One of the memos also authorized a method for combining multiple techniques.[159][161]

Details from the memos also included the number of times that techniques such as waterboarding were used. A footnote said that one detainee was waterboarded 83 times in one month, while another was waterboarded 183 times in a month.[162] [163] This may have gone beyond even what was allowed by the CIA's own directives, which limit waterboarding to 12 times a day.[163] The Fox News website carried reports from an unnamed US official who claimed that these were the number of pourings, not the number of sessions.[164]

Physicians for Human Rights has accused the Bush administration of conducting illegal human experiments and unethical medical research during interrogations of suspected terrorists.[165] The group has suggested this activity was a violation of the standards set by the Nuremberg Trials.[166]

Guantánamo Bay[edit]

The United States maintains a detention center at its military base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba where numerous enemy combatants of the war on terror are held. The detention center has been the source of various controversies regarding the legality of the center and the treatment of detainees.[167][168] Amnesty International has called the situation "a human rights scandal" in a series of reports.[169] 775 detainees have been brought to Guantánamo. Of these, many have been released without charge. As of 18 December 2013, 158 detainees remain at Guantanamo.[170] The United States assumed territorial control over Guantánamo Bay under the 1903 Cuban-American Treaty, which granted the United States a perpetual lease of the area.[171] United States, by virtue of its complete jurisdiction and control, maintains "de facto" sovereignty over this territory, while Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory. The current government of Cuba regards the U.S. presence in Guantánamo as illegal and insists the Cuban-American Treaty was obtained by threat of force in violation of international law.[172]

A delegation of UN Special Rapporteurs to Guantanamo Bay claimed that interrogation techniques used in the detention center amount to degrading treatment in violation of the ICCPR and the Convention Against Torture.[173]

In 2005 Amnesty International expressed alarm at the erosion in civil liberties since the 9/11 attacks. According to Amnesty International:

The Guantánamo Bay detention camp has become a symbol of the United States administration’s refusal to put human rights and the rule of law at the heart of its response to the atrocities of 11 September 2001. It has become synonymous with the United States executive’s pursuit of unfettered power, and has become firmly associated with the systematic denial of human dignity and resort to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment that has marked the US’s detentions and interrogations in the "war on terror".[174]

Amnesty International also condemned the Guantánamo facility as "...the gulag of our times," which raised heated conversation in the United States. The purported legal status of "unlawful combatants" in those nations currently holding detainees under that name has been the subject of criticism by other nations and international human rights institutions including Human Rights Watch and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The ICRC, in response to the US-led military campaign in Afghanistan, published a paper on the subject.[175] HRW cites two sergeants and a captain accusing U.S. troops of torturing prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan.[176]

However, former Republican governor Mike Huckabee, for example, has stated that the conditions in Guantánamo are better than most US prisons.[177]

The US government argues that even if detainees were entitled to POW status, they would not have the right to lawyers, access to the courts to challenge their detention, or the opportunity to be released prior to the end of hostilities—and that nothing in the Third Geneva Convention provides POWs such rights, and POWs in past wars have generally not been given these rights.[178] The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on June 29, 2006, that they were entitled to the minimal protections listed under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.[179] Following this, on July 7, 2006, the Department of Defense issued an internal memo stating that prisoners would in the future be entitled to protection under Common Article 3.[180][181][182]

Extraordinary rendition[edit]

United States citizens and foreign nationals are occasionally captured and abducted outside of the United States and transferred to secret US administered detention facilities, sometimes being held incommunicado for periods of months or years, a process known as extraordinary rendition.

According to The New Yorker, "The most common destinations for rendered suspects are Egypt, Morocco, Syria, and Jordan, all of which have been cited for human-rights violations by the State Department, and are known to torture suspects."[183]

Notable cases[edit]

In November 2001, Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen, was captured by Afghan Northern Alliance forces in Konduz, Afghanistan, amongst hundreds of surrendering Taliban fighters and was transferred into U.S. custody. The U.S. government alleged that Hamdi was there fighting for the Taliban, while Hamdi, through his father, has claimed that he was merely there as a relief worker and was mistakenly captured. Hamdi was transferred into CIA custody and transferred to the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, but when it was discovered that he was a U.S. citizen, he was transferred to naval brig in Norfolk, Virginia and then he was transferred brig in Charleston, South Carolina. The Bush Administration identified him as an unlawful combatant and denied him access to an attorney or the court system, despite his Fifth Amendment right to due process. In 2002 Hamdi's father filed a habeas corpus petition, the Judge ruled in Hamdi's favor and required he be allowed a public defender; however, on appeal the decision was reversed. In 2004, in the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld the U.S. Supreme court reversed the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition and ruled detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their detention before an impartial judge.

In December 2004, Khalid El-Masri, a German citizen, was apprehended by Macedonian authorities when traveling to Skopje because his name was similar to Khalid al-Masri, an alleged mentor to the al-Qaeda Hamburg cell. After being held in a motel in Macedonia for over three weeks he was transferred to the CIA and extradited to Afghanistan. While held in Afghanistan, El-Masri claims he was sodomized, beaten, and repeatedly interrorgated about alleged terrorist ties.[184] After being in custody for five months, Condoleezza Rice learned of his detention and ordered his release. El-Masri was released at night on a desolate road in Albania, without apology or funds to return home. He was intercepted by Albanian guards, who believed he was a terrorist due to his haggard and unkept appearance. He was subsequently reunited with his wife who had returned to her family in Lebanon with their children because she thought her husband had abandoned them. Using isotope analysis, scientists at the Bavarian archive for geology in Munich analyzed his hair and verified that he was malnourished during his disappearance.[185]

In 2007, U.S. President Bush signed an Executive order banning the use of torture in the CIA's interrogation program.[186]

According to the Human Rights Watch report (September 2012) the United States government during the U.S. President Bush republican administration “waterboarding” tortured opponents of Muammar Gaddafi during interrogations, then transferred them to mistreatment in Libya.[187][188] President Barack Obama has denied water torture.[189]

Unethical human experimentation in the United States[edit]

Well-known cases include:

International comparison[edit]

According to Canadian historian Michael Ignatieff, during and after the Cold War, the United States placed greater emphasis than other nations on human rights as part of its foreign policy, awarded foreign aid to facilitate human rights progress, and annually assessed the human rights records of other national governments.[15]

Support[edit]

The U.S. Department of State publishes a yearly report "Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The U.S. Record" in compliance with a 2002 law that requires the Department to report on actions taken by the U.S. Government to encourage respect for human rights.[190] It also publishes a yearly "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.".[191] In 2006 the United States created a "Human Rights Defenders Fund" and "Freedom Awards."[192] The "Ambassadorial Roundtable Series", created in 2006, are informal discussions between newly confirmed U.S. Ambassadors and human rights and democracy non-governmental organizations.[193] The United States also support democracy and human rights through several other tools.[194]

The "Human Rights and Democracy Achievement Award" recognizes the exceptional achievement of officers of foreign affairs agencies posted abroad.

Under legislation by congress, the United States declared that countries utilizing child soldiers may no longer be eligible for US military assistance, in an attempt to end this practice.[196]

Treaties ratified[edit]

See also International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - United States

The U.S. has signed and ratified the following human rights treaties:

Non-binding documents voted for:

International Bill of Rights[edit]

See also International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - United States

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) are the legal treaties that enshrine the rights outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Together, and along with the first and second optional protocols of the ICCPR they constitute the International bill of rights[201][202] The US has not ratified the ICESCR or either of the optional protocols of the ICCPR.

The US's ratification of the ICCPR was done with five reservations – or limits – on the treaty, 5 understandings and 4 declarations. Among these is the rejection of sections of the treaty that prohibit capital punishment.[203][204] Included in the Senate's ratification was the declaration that "the provisions of Article 1 through 27 of the Covenant are not self-executing",[205] and in a Senate Executive Report stated that the declaration was meant to "clarify that the Covenant will not create a private cause of action in U.S. Courts."[206] This way of ratifying the treaty was criticized as incompatible with the Supremacy Clause by Louis Henkin.[207]

As a reservation that is "incompatible with the object and purpose" of a treaty is void as a matter of international law, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, art. 19, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 (entered into force Jan. 27, 1980) (specifying conditions under which signatory States can offer "reservations"), there is some issue as to whether the non-self-execution declaration is even legal under domestic law. At any rate, the United States is but a signatory in name only.

International Criminal Court[edit]

The U.S. has not ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which was drafted for prosecuting individuals above the authority of national courts in the event of accusations of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crime of aggression. Nations that have accepted the Rome Statute can defer to the jurisdiction of the ICC or must surrender their jurisdiction when ordered.

The US rejected the Rome Statute after its attempts to include the nation of origin as a party in international proceedings failed, and after certain requests were not met, including recognition of gender issues, "rigorous" qualifications for judges, viable definitions of crimes, protection of national security information that might be sought by the court, and jurisdiction of the UN Security Council to halt court proceedings in special cases.[208] Since the passage of the statute, the US has actively encouraged nations around the world to sign "bilateral immunity agreements" prohibiting the surrender of US personnel before the ICC[209] and actively attempted to undermine the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.[210] The US Congress also passed a law, American Service-Members' Protection Act (ASPA) authorizing the use of military force to free any US personnel that are brought before the court rather than its own court system.[211][212] Human Rights Watch criticized the United States for removing itself from the Statute.[213]

Judge Richard Goldstone, the first chief prosecutor at The Hague war crimes tribunal on the former Yugoslavia, echoed these sentiments saying:

I think it is a very backwards step. It is unprecedented which I think to an extent smacks of pettiness in the sense that it is not going to affect in any way the establishment of the international criminal court...The US have really isolated themselves and are putting themselves into bed with the likes of China, the Yemen and other undemocratic countries.[213]

While the US has maintained that it will "bring to justice those who commit genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes," its primary objections to the Rome Statute have revolved around the issues of jurisdiction and process. A US ambassador for War Crimes Issues to the UN Security Council said to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee that because the Rome Statute requires only one nation to submit to the ICC, and that this nation can be the country in which an alleged crime was committed rather than defendant’s country of origin, U.S military personnel and US foreign peaceworkers in more than 100 countries could be tried in international court without the consent of the US. The ambassador states that "most atrocities are committed internally and most internal conflicts are between warring parties of the same nationality, the worst offenders of international humanitarian law can choose never to join the treaty and be fully insulated from its reach absent a Security Council referral. Yet multinational peacekeeping forces operating in a country that has joined the treaty can be exposed to the court's jurisdiction even if the country of the individual peacekeeper has not joined the treaty."[208]

Other treaties not signed or signed but not ratified[edit]

Where the signature is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval, the signature does not establish the consent to be bound. However, it is a means of authentication and expresses the willingness of the signatory state to continue the treaty-making process. The signature qualifies the signatory state to proceed to ratification, acceptance or approval. It also creates an obligation to refrain, in good faith, from acts that would defeat the object and the purpose of the treaty.[214]

The U.S. has not ratified the following international human rights treaties:[198]

The US has signed but not ratified the following treaties:

Non-binding documents voted against:

Inter-American human rights system[edit]

The US is a signatory to the 1948 American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and has signed but not ratified the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights. It is a member of Inter-American Convention on the Granting of Political Rights to Women (1948). It does not accept the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Costa Rica-based Inter-American Court of Human Rights.[216][217]

The US has not ratified any of the other regional human rights treaties of the Organization of American States,[198] which include:

Coverage of violations in the media[edit]

Studies have found that the New York Times coverage of worldwide human rights violations is seriously biased, predominantly focusing on the human rights violations in nations where there is clear U.S. involvement, while having relatively little coverage of the human rights violations in other nations.[218][219] Amnesty International's Secretary General Irene Khan explains, "If we focus on the U.S. it's because we believe that the U.S. is a country whose enormous influence and power has to be used constructively ... When countries like the U.S. are seen to undermine or ignore human rights, it sends a very powerful message to others."[220]

Further assessments[edit]

According to Freedom in the World, an annual report by US based think-tank Freedom House, which rates political rights and civil liberties, in 2007, the United States was ranked "Free" (the highest possible rating), together with 92 other countries.

The Polity data series, which rate regime and authority characteristics, covering the years 1800-2004, has ranked the United States with the highest possible rating since 1871.[221]

According to the Economist Magazine's Democracy Index, the US ranks 17 out of 167 nations.

According to the annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index published by Reporters Without Borders, due to wartime restrictions the United States was ranked 53rd from the top in 2006 (out of 168), 44th in 2005.[222] 22nd in 2004,[223] 31st in 2003[224] and 17th in 2002.[225]

According to the annual Corruption Perceptions Index, which was published by Transparency International, the United States was ranked 20th from the top least corrupt in 2006 (out of 163), 17th in 2005, 18th in 2003, and 16th in 2002.

According to the annual Privacy International index of 2007, the United States was ranked an "endemic surveillance society", scoring only 1.5 out of 5 privacy points.[226]

According to the Gallup International Millennium Survey, the United States ranked 23rd in citizens' perception of human rights observance when its citizens were asked, "In general, do you think that human rights are being fully respected, partially respected or are they not being respected at all in your country?"[227]

Other issues[edit]

In the aftermath of the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina, criticism by some groups commenting on human rights issues was made regarding the recovery and reconstruction issues[228][229] The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Prison Project documented mistreatment of the prison population during the flooding,[230][231] while United Nations Special Rapporteur Doudou Diène delivered a 2008 report on such issues.[232] The United States was elected in 2009 to sit on the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC),[233] which the U.S. State Department had previously asserted had lost its credibility by its prior stances[234] and lack of safeguards against severe human rights violators taking a seat.[235] In 2006 and 2007, the UNHCR and Martin Scheinin were critical of the United States regard permitting executions by lethal injection, housing children in adult jails, subjecting prisoners to prolonged isolation in supermax prisons, using enhanced interrogation techniques and domestic poverty gaps.[236][237][238][239]

See also[edit]

Criticism of the US Human rights record

US Human rights abuses

Organizations involved in US human rights

People involved in US human rights

Notable comments on Human Rights

References[edit]

  1. ^ Ellis, Joseph J. (1998) [1996]. American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson. Vintage Books. p. 63. ISBN 0-679-76441-0. 
  2. ^ Lauren, Paul Gordon (2007). "A Human Rights Lens on U.S. History: Human Rights at Home and Human Rights Abroad". In Soohoo, Cynthia; Albisa, Catherine; Davis, Martha F. Bringing Human Rights Home: Portraits of the Movement III. Praeger Publishers. p. 4. ISBN 0-275-98824-4. 
  3. ^ Brennan, William, J., ed. Schwartz, Bernard, The Burger Court: counter-revolution or confirmation?, Oxford University Press US, 1998,ISBN 0-19-512259-3, page 10
  4. ^ Schneebaum, Steven M. (Summer, 1998). "Human rights in the United States courts: The role of lawyers". Washington & Lee Law Review. Retrieved 2009-06-10. 
  5. ^ Declaration of Independence
  6. ^ Henkin, Louis; Rosenthal, Albert J. (1990). Constitutionalism and rights: the influence of the United States constitution abroad. Columbia University Press. pp. 2–3. ISBN 0-231-06570-1. 
  7. ^ Morgan, Edmund S. (1989). Inventing the People: The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0393306232. 
  8. ^ See, e.g., "Article VI". U.S. Constitution. 1787. "The Senators and Representative before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United Sates and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." 
  9. ^ See, e.g.,Fischer, David Hackett. Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America. Oxford University Press. pp. 490–498. ISBN 978-0-19-506905-1. ""On the subject of gender, the Quakers had a saying: "In souls, there is no sex." to g" 
  10. ^ "Blackstone Valley". Blackstonedaily.com. Retrieved June 29, 2011. 
  11. ^ "Blackstone Valley". Blackstonedaily.com. Retrieved June 29, 2011. 
  12. ^ a b "Women in Politics: A Timeline". International Women's Democracy Center. Retrieved January 3, 2012. 
  13. ^ "The Liz Library Presents: The Woman Suffrage Timeline". Thelizlibrary.org. August 26, 1920. Retrieved June 29, 2011. 
  14. ^ [1][dead link]
  15. ^ a b Ignatieff, Michael (2005). "Introduction: American Exceptionalism and Human Rights". American Exceptionalism and Human Rights. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-11648-2. 
  16. ^ National Coordinating Committee for UDHR (1998). "Drafting and Adoption: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights". Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute. Retrieved 02-07-2008. 
  17. ^ See Haig v. Agee, Passport Act of 1926, 18 U.S.C. § 1185(b) and the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996
  18. ^ Devine, Carol; Carol Rae Hansen, Ralph Wilde, Hilary Poole (1999). Human rights: The essential reference. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 26–29. ISBN 1-57356-205-X, 9781573562058 Check |isbn= value (help). Retrieved 6/11/2009. 
  19. ^ Leebrick, Kristal (2002). The United States Constitution. Capstone Press. pp. 26–39. ISBN 0-7368-1094-3. 
  20. ^ Foster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. 253, 314-15 (1829) U.S. Supreme Court, Chief Justice Marshall writing: “Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself without the aid of any legislative provision. But when the terms of the stipulation import a contract, when either of the parties engages to perform a particular act, the treaty addresses itself to the political, not the judicial department, and the legislature must execute the contract before it can become a rule for the Court.” at 314, cited in Martin International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law et al.
  21. ^ Martin, F.International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law. Cambridge University Press. 2006. p. 221 and following. ISBN 0-521-85886-0, ISBN 978-0-521-85886-1
  22. ^ McWhirter,Darien A.m Equal Protection', Oryx Press, 1995, page 1
  23. ^ a b Gould, William B., Agenda for Reform: The Future of Employment Relationships and the Law< MIT Press, 1996, ISBN 0-262-57114-5, page 27
  24. ^ a b c d e f Nivola, Pietro S. (2002). Tense commandments: federal prescriptions and city problems,. Brookings Institution Press. pp. 127–8. ISBN 0-8157-6094-9. 
  25. ^ Capozzi, Irene Y., The Civil Rights Act: background, statutes and primer, Nova Publishers, 2006, ISBN 1-60021-131-3, page 6
  26. ^ a b c d James W. Russell, Double standard: social policy in Europe and the United States, Rowman & Littlefield, 2006, ISBN 0-7425-4693-4, pages 147-150
  27. ^ Lauren, Paul Gordon (2003). "My Brother's and Sister's Keeper: Visions and the Birth of Human Rights". The Evolution of International Human Rights: Visions Seen (Second ed.). University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 33. ISBN 0-8122-1854-X. 
  28. ^ Benezet also stated that "Liberty is the right of every human creature, as soon as he breathes the vital air. And no human law can deprive him of the right which he derives from the law of nature." Grimm, Robert T., Anthony Benezet (1716–1784), Notable American Philanthropists: Biographies of Giving and Volunteering, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002, ISBN 1-57356-340-4, pages 26-28
  29. ^ Vorenberg, Michael, Final Freedom: The Civil War, the Abolition of Slavery, and the Thirteenth Amendment, Cambridge University Press, 2001, page 1
  30. ^ Martin, Waldo E. (1998). Brown v. Board of Education: a brief history with documents. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 3&231. ISBN 0-312-12811-8. 
  31. ^ Brown v. Board of Education, 98 F. Supp. 797 (August 3, 1951).
  32. ^ a b "Barack Obama Becomes 44th President of the United States". America.gov. Retrieved 2009-05-23. 
  33. ^ a b Nineteenth Amendment, CRS/LII Annotated Constitution
  34. ^ a b Zippel, Kathrina, SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND TRANSNATIONAL RELATIONS:WHY THOSE CONCERNED WITH GERMAN-AMERICAN RELATIONS SHOULD CARE, American Institute for Contemporary German Studies, The Johns Hopkins University, 2002, page 6
  35. ^ Employment Discrimination Law Under Title VII, Oxford University Press US, 2008, ISBN 0-19-533898-7
  36. ^ Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981)
  37. ^ Midgley, James, and Michelle Livermore, The Handbook of Social Policy, SAGE, 2008, ISBN 1-4129-5076-7, page 448
  38. ^ Blanck, Peter David and David L. Braddock, The Americans with Disabilities Act and the emerging workforce: employment of people with mental retardation, AAMR, 1998, ISBN 0-940898-52-7, page 3
  39. ^ Capozzi, Irene Y., The Civil Rights Act: background, statutes and primer, Nova Publishers, 2006, ISBN 1-60021-131-3, page 60-61
  40. ^ Lawson, Anna, Caroline Gooding, Disability rights in Europe: from theory to practice, Hart Publishing, 2005, ISBN 1-84113-486-4, page 89
  41. ^ Jones, Nancy Lee, The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): overview, regulations and interpretations, Nova Publishers, 2003, ISBN 1-59033-663-1, pages 7-13
  42. ^ "Flashpoints USA: God and Country". PBS. 2007-01-27. Retrieved 2007-06-03. 
  43. ^ HRC: Wisconsin Non-Discrimination Law Wisconsin law explicitly prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, housing, public education, credit and public accommodations. Citations: WIS. STAT. §36.12, § 106.50, § 106.52§ 111.31, § 230.18, § 224.77.
  44. ^ Wilson, Reid (November 15, 2013). "Missouri governor allows same-sex couples to file joint tax returns". Washington Post. Retrieved November 18, 2013. 
  45. ^ http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judge-oks-illinois-marriages-sick-gay-couples-21235459
  46. ^ Egelko, Bob (2009-02-04). f=/c/a/2009/02/03/BAMB15MMOH.DTL "State high court to hear Prop. 8 case March 5". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2009-02-12. 
  47. ^ "California Supreme Court filings pertaining to Proposition 8". Retrieved 2009-01-14. 
  48. ^ McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34 (1924)
  49. ^ "100 Documents That Shaped America:President Franklin Roosevelt's Annual Message (Four Freedoms) to Congress (1941)". U.S. News & World Report. U.S. News & World Report, L.P. Retrieved 2008-04-11. 
  50. ^ a b "Dennis vs. United States". Audio Case Files. Retrieved 2008-09-06. 
  51. ^ "U.S. Army clamping down on soldiers' blogs". Reuters (CNN). 2007-05-02. Archived from the original on 2007-05-22. Retrieved 2007-05-27. 
  52. ^ "Soldiers' Iraq Blogs Face Military Scrutiny". NPR. 2004-08-24. Retrieved 2007-06-14. 
  53. ^ Borland, John (2001-02-26). "Battle lines harden over Net copyright". CNET. Retrieved 2007-05-28. 
  54. ^ "Fatal Flaws in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002" (PDF). Brookings Institution. Archived from the original on 2007-06-16. Retrieved 2007-05-27. 
  55. ^ Fareed Zakaria (September 4, 2010). "What America Has Lost". Newsweek. 
  56. ^ Rachel Quigley (February 19, 2011). "War veteran, 71, dragged out for staging silent protest during Hillary Clinton address... on freedom of speech". Daily Mail. 
  57. ^ "Anti-Bush protesters sue over arrests". Herald Tribune. August 7, 2003. 
  58. ^ Jarrett Murphy (September 3, 2004). "A Raw Deal For RNC Protesters?". CBS News. 
  59. ^ Rick Hampson (May 4, 2010). "1970 Kent State shootings are an enduring history lesson". USA Today. 
  60. ^ "Selma-to-Montgomery March". National Park Service. Retrieved February 20, 2011. 
  61. ^ "Pentagon Exam Calls Protests 'Low-Level Terrorism,' Angering Activists". Fox News Channel. June 17, 2009. 
  62. ^ "Dozens of Occupy protesters arrested in Texas, Oregon". CNN News. October 31, 2011. 
  63. ^ Pub.L. 95–426, 92 Stat. 993, enacted October 7, 1978, 18 U.S.C. § 1185(b)
  64. ^ Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981), at 302
  65. ^ "FOREIGN RELATIONS: Bad Ammunition". Time. 12 April 1948. 
  66. ^ "UN condemns US embargo on Cuba". BBC News. 12 Nov. 2007. Retrieved 14 Apr. 2009. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2455923.stm
  67. ^ Padgett, Tim. "Will Obama Open Up All U.S. Travel to Cuba?" Time Magazine. 14 Apr. 2009. Retrieved 14 Apr. 2009.
  68. ^ Scott Shane (July 1, 2010). "A.C.L.U. Sues Over No-Fly List". The New York Times. 
  69. ^ Abbie Boudreau and Scott Zamost (July 14, 2010). "Thousands of sex offenders receive U.S. passports". CNN. 
  70. ^ "COINTELPRO". PBS. Retrieved June 25, 2010. 
  71. ^ Lisa Rein (October 8, 2008). "Md. Police Put Activists' Names On Terror Lists". The Washington Post. 
  72. ^ a b http://www.ada.asn.au/defender/Winter%202004/Review%20-%20Supreme%20Command%20(Defender,%20Winter%202004).pdf
  73. ^ a b c Constitutional Dictatorship: Crisis Government in the Modern Democracies. Clinton Rossiter. 2002. Page X. ISBN 0-7658-0975-3
  74. ^ Dana Priest and William M. Arkin (December 20, 2010). "Monitoring America: How the U.S. Sees You". CBS News. 
  75. ^ NWI Right to Organize
  76. ^ Azari-Rad, Hamid; Philips, Peter; Prus, Mark J. (2005). The economics of prevailing wage laws. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 3. ISBN 0-7546-3255-5. 
  77. ^ United States of America Working conditions, Information about Working conditions in United States of America
  78. ^ A Curriculum of United States Labor History for Teachers
  79. ^ "Union Members Summary". U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. January 27, 2012. 
  80. ^ Steven Greenhouse (January 27, 2012). "Union Membership Rate Fell Again in 2011". The New York Times. 
  81. ^ National Health Care for the Homeless Council. "Human Rights, Homelessness and Health Care". 
  82. ^ American Medical Association. "Principles of medical ethics". 
  83. ^ Overview - What is Not Covered, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
  84. ^ Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services: Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act
  85. ^ American College of Emergency Physicians Fact Sheet: EMTALA. Retrieved 2007-11-01.
  86. ^ Rowes, Jeffrey (2000). "EMTALA: OIG/HCFA Special Advisory Bulletin Clarifies EMTALA, American College of Emergency Physicians Criticizes It". Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 28 (1): 9092. Archived from the original on 2008-01-29. Retrieved 2008-01-02. 
  87. ^ "The number of uninsured Americans is at an all-time high". CBPP. 2006-08-29. Retrieved 2007-05-28. 
  88. ^ N. Gregory Mankiw (November 4, 2007). "Beyond Those Health Care Numbers". The New York Times. 
  89. ^ "Lack of Insurance May Have Figured In Nearly 17,000 Childhood Deaths, Study Shows". John Hopkins Children's Center. October 29, 2009. 
  90. ^ a b Lieberman, Jethro Koller (1999). A practical companion to the Constitution: how the Supreme Court has ruled on issues from abortion to zoning. University of California Press. p. 382. ISBN 0-520-21280-0. 
  91. ^ Lieberman, Jethro Koller, A practical companion to the Constitution: how the Supreme Court has ruled on issues from abortion to zoning, University of California Press, 1999, ISBN 0-520-21280-0, page 6
  92. ^ Death sentences and executions in 2011 Amnesty International March 2012
  93. ^ Dan Malone (Fall 2005). Cruel and Unusual: Executing the mentally ill. Amnesty International Magazine. 
  94. ^ a b "Abolish the death penalty". Amnesty International. Retrieved 2008-01-25. 
  95. ^ "The Death Penalty and Deterrence". Amnestyusa.org. 2008-02-22. Retrieved 2009-05-23. 
  96. ^ Sheila Berry (2000-09-22). "Death Penalty No Deterrent". Truthinjustice.org. Retrieved 2009-05-23. 
  97. ^ "John W. Lamperti | Capital Punishment". Math.dartmouth.edu. 1973-03-10. Retrieved 2009-05-23. [dead link]
  98. ^ "Discussion of Recent Deterrence Studies | Death Penalty Information Center". Deathpenaltyinfo.org. Retrieved 2009-05-23. 
  99. ^ Melissa S. Green (May 2005). "History of the Death Penalty & Recent Developments". Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage. Retrieved 2008-01-25.  Unknown parameter |note= ignored (help);
  100. ^ "Death Penalty Policy By State". Death Penalty Information Center. Retrieved 2008-01-25. 
  101. ^ Rights Watch (1998). Death Penalty Issue Addressed by Special Rapporteur XXXV (2). UN Chronicle. 
  102. ^ Death Penalty Info
  103. ^ Death Penalty Info: Executions by Year
  104. ^ List of individuals executed in Texas
  105. ^ List of individuals executed in Virginia
  106. ^ "S court bans juvenile executions". BBC News. 2005-03-01. Retrieved 2007-06-03. 
  107. ^ "Executions of child offenders since 1990". Amnesty International. Retrieved 2007-06-03. 
  108. ^ "Abolition of the Death Penalty". The EU's Human rights & Democratisation Policy. Retrieved 2007-06-02. 
  109. ^ "Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project". The American Bar Association. Retrieved 2008-01-25. 
  110. ^ "Why a moratorium?". American Bar Association (Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project). Retrieved 2008-01-25. 
  111. ^ Free, Marvin D. Jr. (November 1997). "The Impact of Federal Sentencing Reforms on African Americans". Journal of Black Studies 28 (2): 268–286. ISSN 0021-9347. JSTOR 2784855. 
  112. ^ "Death Penalty Discrimination: Those Who Murder Whites Are More Likely To Be Executed". Associated Press (CBS News). 2003-04-24. Retrieved 2007-06-03. 
  113. ^ Amnesty International, Human Rights in United States of America, Amnesty International
  114. ^ "One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008", Pew Research Center
  115. ^ "One in 31: The Long Reach of American Corrections", Pew Research Center, released March 2, 2009
  116. ^ Tuhus-Dubrow, Rebecca (2003-12-19). "Prison Reform Talking Points". The Nation. Retrieved 2007-05-27. 
  117. ^ [The Consequences Aren’t Minor, The Impact of Trying Youth as Adults and Strategies for Reform - A Campaign for Youth Justice Report March 2007 pg 7.]
  118. ^ "Facts about Prisons and Prisoners" (PDF). The Sentencing Project. December 2006. Retrieved 2007-05-27. 
  119. ^ a b Fellner, Jamie. "US Addiction to Incarceration Puts 2.3 Million in Prison". Human Rights Watch. Retrieved 2007-06-02. 
  120. ^ a b c Speech by Bonnie Kerness, January 14, 2006, before the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women [2]
  121. ^ a b c d e Journal of Law & Policy Vol 22:145 - http://law.wustl.edu/Journal/22/p145Martin.pdf
  122. ^ Amnesty International Report 1998 [3]
  123. ^ "California jails: "Solitary confinement can amount to cruel punishment, even torture" – UN rights expert". UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. August 23, 2013. 
  124. ^ Ed Pilkington (April 16, 2012). "Forty years in solitary: two men mark sombre anniversary in Louisiana prison". The Guardian. 
  125. ^ "Inhumane Prison Conditions Still Threaten Life, Health of Alabama Inmates Living with HIV/AIDS, According to Court Filings". Human Rights Watch. Retrieved 2006-06-13. 
  126. ^ Cindy Struckman-Johnson & David Struckman-Johnson (2000). "Sexual Coercion Rates in Seven Midwestern Prisons for Men" (PDF). The Prison Journal. 
  127. ^ Abramsky, Sasha (January 22, 2002). Hard Time Blues: How Politics Built a Prison Nation. Thomas Dunne Books. 
  128. ^ Hardaway, Robert (October 30, 2003). No Price Too High: Victimless Crimes and the Ninth Amendment. Praeger Publishers. ISBN 0-275-95056-5. 
  129. ^ "Prisoners in 2005" (PDF). United States Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs. November 2006. Archived from the original on 2007-04-09. Retrieved 2007-06-03. 
  130. ^ "America's One-Million Nonviolent Prisoners". Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. Retrieved 2007-06-03. 
  131. ^ "Race, Rights and Police Brutality". Amnesty International USA. 1999. Retrieved 2007-12-22. 
  132. ^ "Report Charges Police Abuse in U.S. Goes Unchecked". Human Rights Watch. July 7, 1998. Retrieved 2007-12-22. 
  133. ^ Johnson, Kevin (2007-12-17). "Police brutality cases on rise since 9/11". USA Today. Retrieved 2007-12-22. 
  134. ^ Butterfield, Fox (2001-04-29). "When the Police Shoot, Who's Counting?". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-12-22. 
  135. ^ "Unregulated Use of Taser Stun Guns Threatens Lives, ACLU of Northern California Study Finds". ACLU. October 6, 2005. Retrieved 2007-12-22. 
  136. ^ "Man dies after cop hits him with Taser 9 times". CNN. undated article. Retrieved 2008-09-06. 
  137. ^ "Prison Strip Search is Sexually Abusive". ACLU. Retrieved 24 December 2013. 
  138. ^ "Strip Searching Americans Without Cause: A Blow to Personal Privacy". Huffington Post. 6 June 2012. Retrieved 24 December 2013. 
  139. ^ "In U.S. justice system, the strip-search is common practice". Reuters. 19 December 2013. Retrieved 24 December 2013. 
  140. ^ "Strip Searches". Huffington Post. Retrieved 24 December 2013. 
  141. ^ "Human Rights Watch: Summary of International and U.S. Law Prohibiting Torture and Other Ill-treatment of Persons in Custody". May 24, 2004. Retrieved 2007-05-27. 
  142. ^ ICRC official statement: The relevance of IHL in the context of terrorism, 21 July 2005
  143. ^ Ross, Brain and Eposito, Richard (2005-11-18). "CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described". Retrieved 2007-05-27. 
  144. ^ "Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture" (PDF). The United Nations Committee against Torture. 2006-05-19. Archived from the original on 2006-12-11. Retrieved 2007-06-02. 
  145. ^ "Non-standard interrogation techniques" are alleged to have at times included:
    Extended forced maintenance of "stress positions" such as standing or squatting; psychological tricks and "mind games"; sensory deprivation; exposure to loud music and noises; extended exposure to flashing lights; prolonged solitary confinement; denigration of religion; withholding of food, drink, or medical care; withholding of hygienic care or toilet facilities; prolonged hooding; forced injections of unknown substances; sleep deprivation; magneto-cranial stimulation resulting in mental confusion; threats of bodily harm; threats of rendition to torture-friendly states or Guantánamo; threats of rape or sodomy; threats of harm to family members; threats of imminent execution; prolonged constraint in contorted positions (including strappado, or "Palestinian hanging"); facial smearing of real or simulated feces, urine, menstrual blood, or semen; sexual humiliation; beatings, often requiring surgery or resulting in permanent physical or mental disability; release or threat of release to attack dogs, both muzzled or un-muzzled; near-suffocation or asphyxiation via multiple detainment hoods, plastic bags, water-soaked towels or blankets, duct tape, or ligatures; gassing and chemical spraying resulting in unconsciousness; confinement in small chambers too small to fully stand or recline; underwater immersion just short of drowning (i.e. dunking); and extended exposure to extreme temperatures below freezing or above 120 °F (48 °C).
  146. ^ "Human Rights First Releases First Comprehensive Report on Detainee Deaths in U.S. Custody". Human Rights First. 2006-02-22. Retrieved 2007-05-28. 
  147. ^ a b Higham, Scott; Stephens, Joe (2004-05-21). "New Details of Prison Abuse Emerge". The Washington Post. p. A01. Retrieved 2007-06-23. 
  148. ^ "UN Says Abu Ghraib Abuse Could Constitute War Crime", By Warren Hoge, New York Times, June 4, 2004
  149. ^ "Prisoner Abuse: The Accused". ABC News. Retrieved 2007-05-28. 
  150. ^ The Road to Abu Ghraib, Human Rights Watch
  151. ^ Price, Caitlin. "CIA chief confirms use of waterboarding on 3 terror detainees". Jurist Legal News & Research. University of Pittsburgh School of Law. Retrieved 2008-05-13. 
  152. ^ "CIA finally admits to waterboarding". The Australian. 2008-02-07. Retrieved 2008-02-18. 
  153. ^ Hirsh, Michael; John Barry, Daniel Klaidman (2004-06-21). "A tortured debate: amid feuding and turf battles, lawyers in the White House discussed specific terror-interrogation techniques like 'water-boarding' and 'mock-burials'". Newsweek. Retrieved 2007-12-20. 
  154. ^ "Waterboarding qualifies as torture: UN". Retrieved 2008-02-24. 
  155. ^ Bent Sørensen on waterboarding as torture
  156. ^ Violating international law Army Official: Yes, Waterboarding Breaks International Law By Paul Kiel, Talking Points Memo, February 27, 2008
  157. ^ White House defends waterboarding; CIA chief uncertain, Associated Press, February 7, 2008
  158. ^ a b No charges against CIA officials for waterboarding: WTOP, April 16, 2009
  159. ^ BBC website, CIA torture exemption 'illegal', Sunday, 19 April 2009
  160. ^ The Guardian, Obama releases Bush torture memos, 16 April 2009
  161. ^ "Justice Department Memos on Interrogation Techniques". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-04-30. 
  162. ^ a b BBC Today Programme, 20 April 2009
  163. ^ Despite Reports, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Was Not Waterboarded 183 Times, Joseph Abrams, Fox News Channel, April 28, 2009
  164. ^ Bob Drogin (June 8, 2010). "Physicians group accuses CIA of testing torture techniques on detainees". Los Angeles Times. 
  165. ^ "Evidence Indicates that the Bush Administration Conducted Experiments and Research on Detainees to Design Torture Techniques and Create Legal Cover". Physicians for Human Rights. June 7, 2010. 
  166. ^ Monbiot, George. One rule for them. 
  167. ^ In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases, 355 F.Supp.2d 443 (D.D.C. 2005).
  168. ^ "Guantánamo Bay - a human rights scandal". Amnesty International. Archived from the original on 2006-02-06. Retrieved 2006-03-15. 
  169. ^ Rosenberg, Carol (2013-12-18). "U.S. repatriates 2 Guantánamo prisoners to Sudan". Miami Herald. Retrieved 2013-12-18. 
  170. ^ http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/dip_cuba002.asp
  171. ^ De Zayas, Alfred. (2003.) The Status of Guantánamo Bay and the Status of the Detainees.
  172. ^ ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS Situation of detainees at Guantánamo Bay Report of the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Leila Zerrougui; the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Leandro Despouy; the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak; the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Asma Jahangir; and the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, Paul Hunt
  173. ^ "Guantánamo and beyond: The continuing pursuit of unchecked executive power". Amnesty International. 2005-05-13. Archived from the original on 2007-05-09. Retrieved 2007-05-29. 
  174. ^ The legal situation of unlawful/unprivileged combatants (IRRC March 2003 Vol.85 No 849). See Unlawful combatant.
  175. ^ "New Account of Torture by U.S. Tropps, Soldiers Say Failures by Command Led to Abuse". Human Rights Watch. 2005-09-24. Retrieved 2007-05-29. 
  176. ^ "Huckabee Says Guantanamo Bay Offers Better Conditions to Detainees Than Most U.S. Prisons - You Decide 2008". Fox News Channel. 2007-06-11. Retrieved 2009-05-23. 
  177. ^ "Guantanamo Detainees Info Sheet #1 – November 14, 2005" (PDF). White House. Retrieved 2007-11-17. 
  178. ^ "Hamdan v. Rumsfeld" (PDF). June 29 2006. Retrieved 2007-02-10. 
  179. ^ "US detainees to get Geneva rights". BBC. 2006-07-11. Retrieved January 5, 2010. 
  180. ^ "White House: Detainees entitled to Geneva Convention protections". CNN. 2006-07-11. [dead link]
  181. ^ "White House Changes Gitmo Policy". CBS News. 2006-07-11. 
  182. ^ Mayer, Jane (2005-02-14). "Outsourcing Torture". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2007-05-29. 
  183. ^ Markon, Jerry (2006-05-19). "Lawsuit Against CIA is Dismissed". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-05-29. 
  184. ^ Georg Mascolo, Holger Stark: The US Stands Accused of Kidnapping. SPIEGEL ONLINE, February 14, 2005
  185. ^ "Map of Freedom in the World". freedomhouse.org. 2004-05-10. Retrieved 2009-05-23. 
  186. ^ [http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/09/05/us-torture-and-rendition-gaddafi-s-libya US: Torture and Rendition to Gaddafi’s Libya Human Rights Watch September 6, 2012
  187. ^ Delivered Into Enemy Hands US-Led Abuse and Rendition of Opponents to Gaddafi’s Libya Human Rights Watch 2012
  188. ^ HRW: USA käytti vesikidutusta libyalaisiin yle 6.9.2012 (Finnish)
  189. ^ "Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The U.S. Record". United States Department of State: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Retrieved 2007-06-22. 
  190. ^ "Human Rights". United States Department of State: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Retrieved 2007-05-28. 
  191. ^ "International Human Rights Week". United States Department of State: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Archived from the original on 2007-05-09. Retrieved 2007-05-28. 
  192. ^ "Ambassadorial Roundtable Series". United States Department of State: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Archived from the original on 2007-05-09. Retrieved 2007-05-28. 
  193. ^ "Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor". United States Department of State: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Retrieved 2007-06-22. 
  194. ^ "2006 Human Rights and Democracy Achievement Award". United States Department of State: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Retrieved 2007-06-22. 
  195. ^ Jo Becker, children’s rights advocate (2008-12-11). "US Limits Military Aid to Nations Using Child Soldiers | Human Rights Watch". Human Rights Watch. Retrieved 2009-05-23. 
  196. ^ U.S. reservations, declarations, and understandings, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 138 Cong. Rec. S4781-01 (daily ed., April 2, 1992).
  197. ^ a b c Status of US international treaty ratifications
  198. ^ http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/newhvstatbytreaty?OpenView
  199. ^ DPI Press Kit
  200. ^ "OHCHR International law". OHCHR. Retrieved 2009-06-23. 
  201. ^ UN OHCHR Fact Sheet No.2 (Rev.1), The International Bill of Human Rights
  202. ^ OHCHR Reservations and declarations on ratificatons
  203. ^ America'S Problem With Human Rights
  204. ^ 138 Cong. Rec. S4781-84 (1992)
  205. ^ S. Exec. Rep. No. 102-23 (1992)
  206. ^ Louis Henkin, U.S. Ratification of Human Rights Treaties: The Ghost of Senator Bricker, 89 Am. J. Int’l L. 341, 346 (1995)
  207. ^ a b 98/07/23 Amb. Scheffer on international criminal court
  208. ^ Coalition for the ICC
  209. ^ Human Rights Watch - The US and the International Criminal Court
  210. ^ Human Rights Watch, “U.S.: 'Hague Invasion Act' Becomes Law.” 3 August 2002. Retrieved 8 January 2007.
  211. ^ John Sutherland, “Who are America's real enemies?The Guardian, 8 July 2002. Retrieved 8 January 2007.
  212. ^ a b BBC News
  213. ^ Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations 1986 Article 18. [4][5]
  214. ^ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
  215. ^ Basic Documents - Ratifications of the Convention
  216. ^ Organization of American States
  217. ^ "All the News That's Fit to Print? New York Times Coverage of Human-Rights Violations". The Harvard International Journal of Press 4 (4, Fall 1999): 48–69. Retrieved 2007-05-28.  |coauthors= requires |author= (help)
  218. ^ "Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association". All Academic, Inc. 2006-08-31. Retrieved 2007-05-28.  |coauthors= requires |author= (help)
  219. ^ Satter, Raphael (2007-05-24). "Report hits US on human rights". Associated Press (published on Globe). Retrieved 2007-05-29. 
  220. ^ Polity IV data sets
  221. ^ "North Korea, Eritrea and Turkmenistan are the world’s "black holes" for news". Reporters Without Borders. October 2005. Retrieved 2007-05-29. 
  222. ^ "East Asia and Middle East have worst press freedom records". Reporters Without Borders. October 2004. Retrieved 2007-05-29. 
  223. ^ "Cuba second from last, just ahead of North Korea". Reporters Without Borders. October 2003. Retrieved 2007-05-29. 
  224. ^ "Reporters Without Borders publishes the first worldwide press freedom index". Reporters Without Borders. October 2002. Retrieved 2007-05-29. 
  225. ^ [347=x-347-559597 "Leading surveillance societies in the EU and the World 2007"]. Privacy International. December 2007. Retrieved 2009-01-01. 
  226. ^ "Universal Human Rights?". Gallup International. 1999. 
  227. ^ Klapper, Bradley (2006-07-28). "U.N. Panel Takes U.S. to Task Over Katrin". The America's Intelligence Wire. Associated Press. 
  228. ^ 26. The Committee, while taking note of the various rules and regulations prohibiting discrimination in the provision of disaster relief and emergency assistance, remains concerned about information that poor people and in particular African-Americans, were disadvantaged by the rescue and evacuation plans implemented when Hurricane Katrina hit the United States of America, and continue to be disadvantaged under the reconstruction plans. (articles 6 and 26) The State party should review its practices and policies to ensure the full implementation of its obligation to protect life and of the prohibition of discrimination, whether direct or indirect, as well as of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, in the areas of disaster prevention and preparedness, emergency assistance and relief measures. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, it should increase its efforts to ensure that the rights of poor people and in particular African-Americans, are fully taken into consideration in the reconstruction plans with regard to access to housing, education and health care. The Committee wishes to be informed about the results of the inquiries into the alleged failure to evacuate prisoners at the Parish prison, as well as the allegations that New Orleans residents were not permitted by law enforcement officials to cross the Greater New Orleans Bridge to Gretna, Louisiana. See: "Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee on the Second and Third U.S. Reports to the Committee (2006).". Human Rights Committee. University of Minnesota Human Rights Library. 2006-07-28. 
  229. ^ "Hurricane Katrina and the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement" (PDF). Institute for Southern Studies. January 2008. pp. 18–19. Retrieved 2009-05-18.  See also: Sothern, Billy (2006-01-02). "Left to Die". The Nation. pp. 19–22. 
  230. ^ "Report says U.S. Katrina response fails to meet its own human rights principles". New Orleans CityBusiness. 2008-01-16.  See also: "Hurricane Katrina and the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement" (PDF). Institute for Southern Studies. January 2008. Retrieved 2009-05-18. 
  231. ^ "Report of the Special Rapporteur". United Nations Human Rights Council. April 28, 2009. p. 30. Retrieved 2009-05-24. 
  232. ^ "U.S. Elected To U.N. Human Rights Council". ACLU. Retrieved 2009-06-06. 
  233. ^ "Daily Press Briefing". United States Department of State. 2007-05-06. Retrieved 2006-06-24. [dead link]
  234. ^ United Nations General Assembly Verbotim Report meeting 72 session 60 page 5, Mr. Toro Jiménez Venezuela on 15 March 2006 at 11:00 (retrieved 2007-09-19)
  235. ^ "U.N. Torture Committee Critical of U.S.". Human Rights Watch. 2006-05-19. Retrieved 2007-06-14. 
  236. ^ "Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee" (PDF). 
  237. ^ Leopold, Evelyn (2007-05-25). "U.N. expert faults U.S. on human rights in terror laws". Reuters. Retrieved 2007-06-03.  Also published on The Boston Globe, on Yahoo News, and on ABC News.
  238. ^ Rizvi, Haider. Racial Poverty Gaps in U.S. Amount to Human Rights Violation, Says U.N. Expert. OneWorld.net (published on CommonDreams). 2005-11-30. Retrieved on 2007-08-13. (archived link)

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]