Human rights in the United States: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:20, 23 May 2009 editSoxwon (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers7,494 editsm moved Human rights in the United States to Human rights and the United States over redirect: Simple change suggested on NPOV boards, removes problems of being "in"← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:20, 23 May 2009 edit undoSoxwon (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers7,494 edits moved Human rights in the United States to Human rights and the United States over redirect: Simple change suggested on NPOV boards, removes problems of being "in"Next edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
			#REDIRECT ]
	{{POV\|date=May 2009}}
	]. Given to mark the friendship established during the American Revolution between France and the United States, the symbolism has grown to include freedom and democracy.<ref name=Statue>{{cite web\|accessdate=
	\|url=http://www.statueofliberty.org/Statue_History.html
	\|title=History of the Statue of Liberty
	\|author=National Park Service
	\|publisher=The Statue of Liberty of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation, Inc.
	}}</ref>]]

	The '''United States''' has a long and established tradition of avowed respect for its citizens' human rights. At the same time, like many nations, it also had a history of both de jure and de facto racial discrimination. Outside of the United States, while the ] has been praised for its progressive ] record, it has faced criticism over certain issues, such as alleged torture of terrorist suspects.<ref name=boston>{{cite news\|url=http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2007/05/24/report_hits_us_on_human_rights/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+World+News\|title=Report hits US on human rights\|publisher=Associated Press (published on Globe]])\|first=Raphael\|last=Satter\|date=2007-05-24\|accessdate=2007-05-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web\|url=http://hrw.org/wr2k2/us.html\|title=World Report 2002: United States\|publisher=]\|accessdate=2007-06-02}}</ref>

	Historically, the United States has been committed to the principle of ] and has sheltered many political and economic refugees in times of international strife, although this record is also far from unblemished in various important areas. It has a powerful and ]<ref>Bernard Schwartz. 1968. Rights of the Person. page 4</ref> and a ] that enforces ] to prevent ].<ref>Bernard Schwartz. 1968. Rights of the Person. page 14</ref> Legally, human rights within the United States are those rights recognized by the ] and those recognized by treaties ratified by the ] as well as certain rights articulated by the Congress of the United States.<ref>]</ref><ref>Reginald Wilson, Think About Our Rights. 1988. page 1-5</ref> The Constitution and treaties are generally interpreted by the judicial branch and particularly the ].<ref>Reginald Wilson, Think About Our Rights. 1988. page 1-9</ref><ref>Bernard Schwartz. 1968. Rights of the Person. page 3-9</ref> Human rights within the United States are thus largely determined by the judiciary.<ref>Bernard Schwartz. 1968. Rights of the Person. page 44</ref>

	Internationally, the United States was central to the creation of the ] and to the drafting of the ]. Much of the ] was modeled in part on the ].<ref>{{cite web\|title=Drafting and Adoption: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights\|url=http://www.udhr.org/history/overview.htm\|accessdate=02-07-2008\|author=National Coordinating Committee for UDHR\|publisher=Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute\|year=1998}}</ref><ref>Reginald Wilson. 1988. Think about our rights. ISBN 0-8027-6751-6. pages 31.</ref> In the latter part of the 20th century, however, the US has participated in few of the international human rights treaties, covenants and declarations adopted by the UN member states. In the 21st century, the US opposed the ] of the ].<ref></ref>

	==Overview==
	On September 17, 1787 the ] was adopted, which created a ] that guaranteed ] and economic rights for all its citizenry. The American system seeks to ensure a free society where life, liberty and a host of inalienable human rights are guaranteed by its Constitution, including the ] (the first ten amendments of the Constitution), and as called for by the ]. ] in the United States are built on what has been described as a '']'' 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".<ref>Declaration of Independence</ref> This view of human liberty reflects the opinion that fundamental rights are not granted by the state but are inherent to each individual (hence these rights are "unalienable" and each human is "endowed" to them by their Creator). The Constitution recognizes a number of inalienable human rights, including ], ], ], the ], freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, and the right to a fair ] by jury.{{citation needed}}

	]s have been enacted as the needs of the society of the United States changed. The ] and ] recognize that not all human rights have yet been enumerated. The ] and the ] are examples of human rights that were enumerated by Congress well after its 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 ]. Within the government, the debate about what may or may not prove to be an emerging human right is held in two forums, the United States Congress which may enumerate these or the Supreme Court which may articulate rights not recognized.

	== Equality ==
	=== Racial ===
	] signs the ], 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 ]]]
	{{see\|Equal Protection Clause\|Civil Rights Act of 1964}}
	The ] of the ] 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."<ref>McWhirter,Darien A.m ''Equal Protection', Oryx Press, 1995, page 1</ref> In addition, ] 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 ] (CRA),<ref name="Gould27"/> while most of the world contains no such recourse for job discrimination.<ref name="Nivola02127"/> 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.<ref name="Capozzi6">Capozzi, Irene Y., ''The Civil Rights Act: background, statutes and primer'', Nova Publishers, 2006, ISBN 1600211313, page 6</ref> The United States' 1991 provision of recourse for victims of such discrimination for ] and full back pay has virtually no parallel in the legal systems of any other nation.<ref name="Nivola02127">Nivola, Pietro S., ''Tense commandments: federal prescriptions and city problems'', Brookings Institution Press, 2002, ISBN 0815760949, page 127-8</ref> In addition to individual civil recourse, the United States possesses anti-discrimination government enforcement bodies, such as the ], while only the United Kingdom and Ireland possess faintly analogous bureaucracies.<ref name="Nivola02127"/> Beginning in 1965, the United States also began a program of ] which not only obliges employers not to discriminate, but also requires them to provide preferences for groups protected under the Civil Rights Act to increase their numbers where they are judged to be underrepresented.<ref name="russel147"/> Such affirmative action programs are also applied in college admissions.<ref name="russel147"/> The United States also ], 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 ]s, ]s, ] and ].

	Prior to the passage of the ], ] was legal in some states of the United States until 1865.<ref>Vorenberg, Michael, ''Final Freedom: The Civil War, the Abolition of Slavery, and the Thirteenth Amendment'', Cambridge University Press, 2001, page 1</ref> In addition, the Fourteenth Amendment was interpreted to permit what was termed '']'' treatment of minorities until the ] overturned this interpretation in 1954, which consequently overturned ].<ref>''Brown v. Board of Education'', (August 3, 1951).</ref> ] did not have citizenship rights until the ] of 1887 and the ].

	Following a historic election, ] was sworn in as the first African-American president of the United States on ], ].<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.america.gov/st/usg-english/2009/January/20090120151307hmnietsua0.4407007.html \|title=Barack Obama Becomes 44th President of the United States \|publisher=America.gov \|date= \|accessdate=2009-05-23}}</ref> In his Inaguaral Address, Mr. 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".<ref>http://www.america.gov/st/usg-e nglish/2009/January/20090120151307hmnietsua0.4407007.html</ref>

	===Gender===
	The ] prohibits the states and the federal government from denying any citizen the right to vote because of that citizen's sex.<ref name="lc">, CRS/LII Annotated Constitution</ref> While this does not necessarily guarantee all women the right to vote, as ] qualifications are determined by individual states, it does mean that states' suffrage qualifications may not prevent women from voting due to their gender.<ref name="lc"/>

	The United States was the first major industrialized country to enact comprehensive ] legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender in the workplace<ref name="Gould27">Gould, William B., ''Agenda for Reform: The Future of Employment Relationships and the Law''< MIT Press, 1996, ISBN 0262571145, page 27</ref> while most of the world contains no such recourse for job discrimination.<ref name="Nivola02127"/> The United States' 1991 provision of recourse for discrimination victims for ] and full back pay has virtually no parallel in the legal systems of any other nation.<ref name="Nivola02127"/> In addition to individual civil recourse, the United States possesses anti-discrimination government enforcement bodies, such as the ], while only the United Kingdom and Ireland possess faintly analogous bureaucracies.<ref name="Nivola02127"/> Beginning in 1965, the United States also began a program of ] which not only obliges employers not to discriminate, but also requires them to provide preferences for groups protected under the ] to increase their numbers where they are judged to be underrepresented.<ref name="russel147">James W. Russell, ''Double standard: social policy in Europe and the United States'', Rowman & Littlefield, 2006, ISBN 0742546934, pages 147-150</ref> Such affirmative action programs are also applied in college admissions.<ref name="russel147"/>

	The United States was also the first country to legally define ] in the workplace.<ref name="Zippel6">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</ref> Because sexual harassment is therefore a ] violation, individual legal rights of those harassed in the workplace are comparably stronger in the United States than in most European countries.<ref name="Zippel6"/> The ] also provides that equal pay must be paid for workers of equal work, regardless of gender, if the jobs they perform require "equal skill, effort, and responsibility and are performed under similar working conditions in the same establishment."<ref>Jasper, Margaret C., ''Employment Discrimination Law Under Title VII'', Oxford University Press US, 2008, ISBN 0195338987</ref> The ] does not require women to register for a possible ]<ref></ref> and the ] does not permit women to serve in some front-line combat units.

	===Disability===
	{{see\|Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990}}
	The United States was the first country in the world to adopt sweeping antidiscrimination legislation for people with disabilities, the ] (ADA).<ref name="midgley">Midgley, James, and Michelle Livermore, ''The Handbook of Social Policy'', SAGE, 2008, ISBN 1412950767, page 448</ref> 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.<ref name="blanck3">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 0940898527, page 3</ref> The ADA amends the ] and permits plaintiffs to recover ].<ref name="Capozzi60">Capozzi, Irene Y., ''The Civil Rights Act: background, statutes and primer'', Nova Publishers, 2006, ISBN 1600211313, page 60-61</ref> 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.<ref name="Lawson89">Lawson, Anna, Caroline Gooding, ''Disability rights in Europe: from theory to practice'', Hart Publishing, 2005, ISBN 1841134864, page 89</ref> Although ADA Title I was ], the ] to people with ] (AIDS).<ref>Jones, Nancy Lee, ''The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): overview, regulations and interpretations'', Nova Publishers, 2003, ISBN 1590336631, pages 7-13</ref>

	=== Sexual orientation ===

	{{see also\|Same-sex marriage in the United States}}

	The Constitution of the United States explicitly recognizes certain individual rights, but it does not explicitly state any sexual orientation rights. Some states have recognized sexual orientation rights which are discussed below.

	The United States reserves marriage laws to the the states under the Constitution. The ] of the US Constitution ordinarily guarantees the recognition of a marriage performed in one state by another. However, the ] passed the ] of 1996,<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.pbs.org/flashpointsusa/20040127/infocus/topic_02/\|title=Flashpoints USA: God and Country\|date=2007-01-27\|accessdate=2007-06-03\|publisher=]}}</ref> which affirmed that no ] (or other ]) need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state and the ] may not recognize same-sex or ] for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states. This federal law only limits the intrastate recognition of individual state laws and does not limit state law in any way in defining and/or recognizing marriage as between two people of the same sex.

	==== State laws ====

	] was the first state to pass a law explicitly prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. ], ], ], and ] are the only states that allow same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage rights were established by the California Supreme Court in 2008, but on ] of that year voters passed ], amending the state constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman only. As of November, 2008, it is unknown whether or not the marriages performed prior to the passage of Proposition 8 will remain legal. In 1996, ] ruled same-sex marriage is a Hawaiian constitutional right.

	===Privacy===
	Privacy is not explicitly stated in the United States Constitution. In the ] case, the Supreme Court ruled that it is implied in the Constitution. In the '']'' case, the Supreme Court used privacy rights to overturn most laws against ]. In the '']'' case, the Supreme Court held that the patient had a right of privacy to terminate medical treatment. In '']'', the Supreme Court held that the Federal ] can not prohibit ] allowed by the ]. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of criminalizing oral and anal sex in the '']'' {{ussc\|478\|186\|1986}} decision; however, it overturned the decision in the '']'' {{ussc\|539\|558\|2003}} case and established the protection to sexual privacy.

	===Accused===
	The United States maintains a ] in legal procedures.The ], ], ] and ] deals with the rights of criminal suspects. Later the protection was extended to civil cases as well<ref>''McCarthy v. Arndstein'', 266 U.S. 34 (1924)</ref> In the ] case, the Supreme Court requires that indigent criminal defendants who unable to afford their own attorney be provided counsel at trial. Since the '']'' case, the United States requires police departments inform arrested persons of their rights, which is later called ] and typically begins with "You have the right to remain silent."

	== Freedoms ==
	===Freedom of religion===
	{{Expand-section\|date=May 2009}}
	The ] of the ] prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress or the preference of one religion over another. The clause was used to limit ], beginning with '']'', which ruled government-led prayer unconstitutional. '']'' banned moments of silence allocated for praying. The Supreme Court also ruled clergy-led prayer at public high school graduations with '']''.

	The ] guarantees the free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court's '']'' decision established the "Lemon test" exception, which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. The '']'' decision, the Supreme Court maintained a "neutral law of general applicability" can be used to limit religion exercises. In the '']'' decision, the ] was struck down as exceeding congressional power; however, the decision's effect is limited by the '']'' decision, which requires states to express compelling interest in prohibiting illegal drug use in religious practices.

	=== Freedom of expression ===

	{{Main\|Freedom of speech in the United States\|Censorship in the United States}}

	In the United States, like other ], freedom of expression (including speech, ], and ]) is an important right and is given special protection, as declared by the ] of the constitution. According to Supreme Court precedent, the federal and lower governments may not apply ] to expression, with certain exceptions, such as national security and obscenity.<ref>'']''</ref> There is no law punishing insults against the government, ethnic groups, or religious groups. Symbols of the government or its officials may be destroyed in protest, including the ]. Legal limits on expression include:

	*], ], specific threats of violence, or disclosure of ].
	*Advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government through speech or publication, or organizing political parties which advocate the overthrow of the U.S. government (the Smith Act).<ref>{{cite web\|title=Dennis vs. United States\|publisher=Audio Case Files\|accessdate=2008-09-06\|url=http://www.audiocasefiles.com/acf_cases/9769-dennis-v-united-states}}</ref>
	*Civil offenses involving ], fraud, or workplace ]
	*] violations
	*] rules governing the use of ].
	*Crimes involving sexual ] in ] and ].
	*Ordinances requiring mass demonstrations on public property to register in advance.
	*The use of ]s and protest free zones.
	*Military censorship of ] written by military personnel claiming some include ]. Some critics view military officials as trying to suppress dissent from troops in the field.<ref>{{cite news\|title=U.S. Army clamping down on soldiers' blogs\|publisher=Reuters (CNN)\|date=2007-05-02\|accessdate=2007-05-27\|url=http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/internet/05/02/army.blogs.reut/index.html}}</ref><ref>{{cite news\|url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3867981\|title=Soldiers' Iraq Blogs Face Military Scrutiny\|date=2004-08-24\|accessdate=2007-06-14\|publisher=]}}</ref> The US Constitution specifically limits the human rights of active duty members, and this constitutional authority is used to limit speech rights by members in this and in other ways.

	Some laws remain controversial due to concerns that they infringe on freedom of expression. These include the ]<ref>{{cite news\|url=http://news.com.com/2100-1023-251627.html\|publisher=]\|first=John\|last=Borland\|title=Battle lines harden over Net copyright\|date=2001-02-26\|accessdate=2007-05-28}}</ref> and the ].<ref>{{cite web\|title=Fatal Flaws in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002\|publisher=]\|accessdate=2007-05-27\|url=http://www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/gs/cf/debate/Bopp.pdf\|format=PDF}}</ref>
	In two high profile cases, grand juries have decided that '']'' magazine reporter Matthew Cooper and '']'' 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.

	=== Freedom of movement ===
	The United States prevents U.S. citizens to travel to ], citing national security reasons, as part of an embargo against Cuba that has been condemned as an illegal act by the ].<ref>"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</ref> 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.<ref>Padgett, Tim. "Will Obama Open Up All U.S. Travel to Cuba?" ''Time Magazine''. 14 Apr. 2009. Retrieved 14 Apr. 2009.</ref>

	=== National security exceptions ===
	{{See\|National Security Strategy of the United States}}
	The United States government has declared ],<ref name="ada.asn.au">http://www.ada.asn.au/defender/Winter%202004/Review%20-%20Supreme%20Command%20(Defender,%20Winter%202004).pdf</ref> suspended (or claimed exceptions to) some rights on national security grounds, typically in wartime and conflicts such as the ],<ref name="ada.asn.au"/><ref name="constitutional2002">Constitutional Dictatorship: Crisis Government in the Modern Democracies. Clinton Rossiter. 2002. Page X. ISBN 0765809753</ref> ] or the ].<ref name="constitutional2002"/> 70,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry were legally interned during ] under ]. 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.<ref name="constitutional2002"/>

	==== Historical restrictions ====

	Sedition laws have sometimes placed restrictions on freedom of expression. The ], passed by President ] during an undeclared naval conflict with ], allowed the government to punish "false" statements about the government and to deport "dangerous" immigrants. The ] used these acts to harass supporters of the ]. While ] was president, another broad sedition law called the ], was passed during ]. It also caused the arrest and ten year sentencing of ] Presidential candidate ] for speaking out against the atrocities of World War I, although he would later be released early by President ]. Countless others, labeled as "subverts" (especially the ]), 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. ] invoked this power in the ] to imprison ] secessionists. In that case, the Supreme Court concluded that only ] could suspend the writ of ], and the government released the detainees. During ], the United States ] on alleged fears that ] might use them as saboteurs.

	The ] forbids unreasonable search and seizure without a ], but some administrations have claimed exceptions to this rule to investigate alleged ] against the government. During the ], the ] established ] to infiltrate and disrupt left-wing organizations, including those that supported the rights of ].

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

	== Labor Rights==

	Labor rights in the United States have been linked to basic constitutional rights<ref></ref> and strict laws mandate safe working environments, prohibit ], and guarantee a livable ]. 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, and U.S. workers are among the most productive in the world.<ref></ref>

	During the ] and into the 19th century, labor conditions in the United States were loosely controlled described as being "the bloodiest" of any industrialized nation. During the 19th and 20th centuries, safer conditions and workers' rights were gradually mandated by law.<ref></ref> In 1935, the ] 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 ], 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.

	==Health care==
	{{see also\|Health care in the United States}}
	The ], adopted by the ] 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.”<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.nhchc.org/humanright.html\|title=Human Rights, Homelessness and Health Care\|author=National Health Care for the Homeless Council}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/2512.html\|title=Principles of medical ethics\|author=American Medial Association}}</ref> Americans' rights in health care are regulated by the ].

	Unlike most other industrialized nations, the United States does not offer most of its citizens subsidized health care. The United States ] program provides subsidized coverage to some categories of individuals and families with low incomes and resources, including children, pregnant women, and people with disabilities. However, "the Medicaid program does not provide health care services, even for very poor persons, unless they are in one of the designated eligibility groups."<ref>, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services</ref> 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 ], and the ] of 1986 mandates that no person may ever be denied emergency services regardless of ability to pay, citizenship, or immigration status.<ref></ref> The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act has been criticized by the ] as an unfunded mandate.<ref>. Retrieved 2007-11-01.</ref><ref>{{cite journal \|last=Rowes \|first=Jeffrey \|year=2000 \|month= \|title=EMTALA: OIG/HCFA Special Advisory Bulletin Clarifies EMTALA, American College of Emergency Physicians Criticizes It
	\|journal=Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics \|volume=28 \|issue=1 \|page=9092 \|id= \|url=http://www.aslme.org/news/jlme/28.1e.html \|accessdate= 2008-01-02}}</ref>

	46.6 million residents, or 15.9 percent, were without health insurance coverage in 2005.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.cbpp.org/8-29-06health.htm\|title=The number of uninsured Americans is at an all-time high\|publisher=]\|date=2006-08-29\|accessdate=2007-05-28}}</ref>
	This number includes about ten million non-citizens, millions more who would be eligible for ] but have never applied, and 18 million with annual household incomes above $50,000.<ref>{{cite news\|author=] \|title=Beyond Those Health Care Numbers \|publisher=The New York Times\|date=November 4, 2007 \|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/business/04view.html }}</ref>

	===Universal health care debate===
	The level of government involvement in providing, ensuring, and enforcing the right to adequate health care is a topic of longstanding political debate. Indeed, as Peter Lawson indicates in his chapter of the ] textbook ''Public Health Management & Policy'',

	{{cquote\|Various experts and pundits have weighed in on the debate surrounding calls for a national health care system precisely because this issue forces one to consider some of the most intrinsically difficult questions within the political and economic philosophy of the United States: the role of the state in private life, the appropriate position of the government vis a vis the market, and rights of individuals within a capitalist marketplace.<ref name="lawson" />}}

	Historically, several Democratic Presidents (], ], ], ]) and legislators have attempted to institute ], as well as Republican Presidents ] and ].

	Health care itself is a human right, as defined in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.<ref>J.M. Burns, J.W. Peltason, Thomas E. Cronin, and D.B. Magleby. Government By The People. ISBN 0-13-301292-1. 1995. p. 162.</ref> There is vigorous debate if universal health care would improve or would reduce the quality of health care. If improved, this would enhance the right to health care. If degraded, then universal health care would correspondingly degrade this right.

	The ], an international human rights advocacy group, calls for health care reforms in the US to reflect the "right to health," and that the current US health care system "falls short of international standards for the right to health."<ref name="cesr">{{cite web\|url=http://cesr.org/ushealthright\|year=2004\|title=The Right to Health in the United States of America: What Does it Mean?\|author=Center for Economic and Social Rights}}</ref> The center argues that, in order to uphold the right to health care in the United States, "Health care must be universally available and accessible," and that it should be "affordable to all, irrespective of race, gender, religion, geography, and income." Alicia Ely Yamin, a human rights attorney at the ], has advocated universal health care in the ], also citing the pragmatic reason that the US government is failing, she claims, to enforce and uphold nominally extant health care rights.<ref>{{cite journal\|url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1449334#r38\|title=The Right to Health Under International Law and Its Relevance to the United States\|author=Alicia Ely Yamin\|journal=Am J Public Health\|year=2005\|month=July\|volume=95\|issue=7\|pages=1156–1161\|doi=10.2105/AJPH.2004.055111\|pmid=15933233}}</ref> She cites the disparities in quality of health care depending on factors such as race, nationality, and income in calling for the federal government to step in and enforce a more equitable system.

	The United States spends more on health care than does any other nation as a percentage of GDP.<ref name="lawson">{{cite book\|author=Peter Lawson\|title=Public Health Management & Policy\|chapter=National Health Care in the United States: Exploring the Options and Possibilities\|url=http://www.case.edu/med/epidbio/mphp439/National_Health_Care.htm\|year=2007\|edition=8th\|accessdate=2008-01-26}}</ref> One textbook suggests that because costs are so high and are increasing; that the real problem is that the system is too good, and not everyone can afford increasingly expensive medical care, and so the real challenge might be to find any method that can afford the increasing medical expenditures.<ref>J.M. Burns, J.W. Peltason, Thomas E. Cronin, and D.B. Magleby. Government By The People. ISBN 0-13-301292-1. 1995. p. 511</ref> However, the ] in 2000 ranked the U.S. health care system 37th in overall performance and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study).<ref>. Press Release WHO/44 21 June 2000.</ref><ref></ref> Similarly, a study by ] showed that, despite the comparatively large expenditure of public money on health care, the United States health system consistently underperforms in most performance indicators.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=482678\|author=K. Davis, C. Schoen, S. C. Schoenbaum, M. M. Doty, A. L. Holmgren, J. L. Kriss, and K. K. Shea\|title=Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International Update on the Comparative Performance of American Health Care\|publisher=]\|month=May \| year=2007\|accessdate=2008-02-01}}</ref> Similar results have been attested by ], who has argued that among the reasons for the lower returns on public health money in the US is that the current system of private insurers is less efficient than a single state-administered insurance system such as Medicaide.<ref>{{cite book\|author=Arnold S. Relman\|title=A Second Opinion: Rescuing America's Health Care\|year=2007\|isbn=978-1586484811\|publisher=PublicAffairs\|location=New York}}</ref>

	Other voices have also weighed in on the other side of the debate. For instance, ] argues in ''The Washington Times'':

	{{cquote\|Health care is not a right -- no matter how often you hear otherwise. Health care is the consequence of heroic efforts on the part of individual doctors, who have every right to charge what the market permits. If we take away the right of medical professionals to set their own fees, we will undermine their independence and chase the best ones into early retirement.<ref>{{cite news\|author=Hurd, M.\|title=Rhetoric Notwithstanding, Health Care Is Not A Right\|publisher=The Washington Times\|date=April 6, 1993\|url=http://www.drhurd.com/medialink/health-care-not-a-right.html}}</ref>}}

	In 1994, ] ] attempted to implement ] without a ]. According to Hillary Clinton biographer ], this plan called for moving most Americans to HMOs and "strictly ration access to high-tech treatments, especially for the very ill and the elderly", cutting 124 billion from ] and, Milton argues, would have restricted access to pharmaceuticals that were too expensive.<ref>Joyce Milton. 1999. First Partner. ISBN-0-688-15501-4. p. 277.</ref> Congress defeated the measure, and the Democrats were defeated in the 1994 midterm election which '']'' described as a referendum on the big-government associated with the Clinton plan.<ref>Thomas, Evan. , ''Newsweek''. ]).</ref>

	== Justice system ==
	=== Death penalty ===
	{{See also\|Capital punishment in the United States}}
	{{See also\|Capital punishment debate}}
	Capital punishment is controversial. Death penalty opponents regard the death penalty as inhumane<ref name="amnesty-ill">{{cite journal\|title=Cruel and Unusual: Executing the mentally ill\|url=http://www.amnestyusa.org/page.do?id=1105184In\|author=Dan Malone\|publisher=Amnesty International Magazine\|year=2005\|month=Fall}}</ref> and criticize it for its irreversibility<ref name="amnesty-irreversible">{{cite web\|url=http://www.amnestyusa.org/Our_Issues/Death_Penalty/page.do?id=1011005&n1=3&n2=28\|title=Abolish the death penalty\|publisher=Amnesty International\|accessdate=2008-01-25}}</ref> and assert that it lacks a deterrent effect,<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty-facts/the-death-penalty-and-deterrence/page.do?id=1101085&n1=3&n2=28&n3=99 \|title=The Death Penalty and Deterrence \|publisher=Amnestyusa.org \|date=2008-02-22 \|accessdate=2009-05-23}}</ref> as have several studies<ref>{{cite web\|author=Sheila Berry \|url=http://www.truthinjustice.org/922death.htm \|title=Death Penalty No Deterrent \|publisher=Truthinjustice.org \|date=2000-09-22 \|accessdate=2009-05-23}}</ref><ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~lamperti/capitalpunishment.html \|title=John W. Lamperti \| Capital Punishment \|publisher=Math.dartmouth.edu \|date=1973-03-10 \|accessdate=2009-05-23}}</ref> and debunking studies which claim to show a deterrent effect.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?&did=2374 \|title=Discussion of Recent Deterrence Studies \| Death Penalty Information Center \|publisher=Deathpenaltyinfo.org \|date= \|accessdate=2009-05-23}}</ref> According to ], "the death penalty is the ultimate, irreversible denial of human rights."<ref name="amnesty-irreversible" />

	The 1972 US Supreme Court case '']'' {{ussc\|408\|238\|1972}} held that arbitrary imposition of the death penalty at the states' discretion constituted ] in violation of the ]. In '']'' 64 Cal.2d 633, 414 P.2d 366 (Cal. 1972), the ] classified capital punishment as ] and outlawed the use of capital punishment in California, until it was reinstated in 1976 after the federal supreme court rulings ], {{ussc\|428\|153\|1976}}, '']'', {{ussc\|428\|262\|1976}}, and ], {{ussc\|428\|242\|1976}}.<ref name="alaska-law">{{cite web\|url=http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/death/history.html\|title=History of the Death Penalty & Recent Developments\|year=2005\|month=May\|accessdate=2008-01-25\|author=Melissa S. Green\|note=In Focus on the Death Penalty (website)\|publisher=Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage}}</ref> As of January 25, 2008, the death penalty has been abolished in the ] and fourteen ], mainly in the ] and ].<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=121&scid=11\|title=Death Penalty Policy By State\|publisher=\|accessdate=2008-01-25}}</ref>

	The UN special ] recommended to a committee of the UN ] that the United States be found to be in violation of Article 6 the ] in regards to the death penalty in 1998, and called for an immediate capital punishment moratorium.<ref>{{cite journal\|author=Rights Watch\|url=http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/1998/issue2/0298p72.html\|title=Death Penalty Issue Addressed by Special Rapporteur\|publisher=UN Chronicle\|volume=Volume XXXV\|issue=Number 2 \|year=1998}}</ref> The recommendation of the special ] is not legally binding under international law, and in this case the UN did not act upon the lawyers recommendation.

	Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976 there have been 1077 executions in the United States (as of May 23, 2007).<ref name = "Death Penalty Info"></ref> There were 53 executions in 2006.<ref name = "Death Row USA"></ref> Texas overwhelmingly leads the United States in executions, with 379 executions from 1976 to 2006;<ref>]</ref> the second-highest ranking state is Virginia, with 98 executions.<ref>]</ref>

	A ruling on March 1, 2005 by the Supreme Court in '']'' prohibits the execution of people who committed their crimes when they were under the age of 18.<ref>{{cite news\|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4308881.stm\|title=S court bans juvenile executions\|publisher=BBC News\|date=2005-03-01\|accessdate=2007-06-03}}</ref> Between 1990 and 2005, ] recorded 19 executions in the United States for crime committed by a juvenile.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-children-stats-eng\|title=Executions of child offenders since 1990\|publisher=]\|accessdate=2007-06-03}}</ref>

	It is the official policy of the ] 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 '']'' briefs in a number of important US court cases related to capital punishment.<ref>{{cite web\|title=Abolition of the Death Penalty\|publisher=The EU's Human rights & Democratisation Policy\|url=http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/human_rights/adp/index.htm\|accessdate=2007-06-02}}</ref> The ] also sponsors a project aimed at abolishing the death penalty in the United States,<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.abanet.org/moratorium/\|title=Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project\|publisher=The American Bar Association\|accessdate=2008-01-25}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web\|title=Why a moratorium?\|publisher=American Bar Association (Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project)\|url=http://www.abanet.org/moratorium/why.html\|accessdate=2008-01-25}}</ref>

	Some opponents criticize the overrepresentation 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.<ref name=Free1997>{{cite journal
	\|title=The Impact of Federal Sentencing Reforms on African Americans
	\|author=Free, Marvin D. Jr.
	\|journa=Journal of Black Studies
	\|volume=28 \|issue=2
	\| pages=268–286
	\|accessdate=2007-05-31 \|url=http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-9347(199711)28%3A2%3C268%3ATIOFSR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F
	\|issn=0021-9347
	\|month=November
	\|year=1997}}</ref> In ], it was alleged the capital sentencing process was administered in a racially discriminatory manner in violation of the ] of the ].

	In 2003, ] 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.<ref name="autogenerated2">{{cite news\|title=Death Penalty Discrimination: Those Who Murder Whites Are More Likely To Be Executed\|date=2003-04-24\|publisher=Associated Press (])\|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/24/national/main550986.shtml\|accessdate=2007-06-03}}</ref>

	=== Prison system ===
	{{see also\|Prisons in the United States\|Cutter v. Wilkinson}}

	The United States is seen by social critics, including international and domestic ] groups and ] 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 (]), and societal control of ] groups through a harsh police and ] system. The U.S. penal system is implemented on the federal, and in particular on the state and local levels. This ] has resulted in an extraordinary and unique in the world rate of incarceration, which hits Americans from the lowest ] and ] the hardest.

	Some have criticized the United States for having an extremely large prison population, where there have been reported abuses.<ref>{{cite news\|url=http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040105/tuhusdubrow\|title=Prison Reform Talking Points\|publisher=]\|date=2003-12-19\|accessdate=2007-05-27\|first=Rebecca\|last=Tuhus-Dubrow}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/1035.pdf\|title=Facts about Prisons and Prisoners\|publisher=]\|month=December \| year=2006\|accessdate=2007-05-27\|format=PDF}}</ref> "] 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."<ref name=hrw20061201>{{cite web\|author=Fellner, Jamie\|title=US Addiction to Incarceration Puts 2.3 Million in Prison\|publisher=Human Rights Watch\|url=http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/12/01/usdom14728.htm\|accessdate=2007-06-02}}</ref>

	Examples of mistreatment claimed include prisoners left naked and exposed in harsh weather or cold air;<ref name="UN"> Speech by ], January 14, 2006, before the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women </ref> "routine" use of ]s<ref name="JLP">''Journal of Law & Policy'' Vol 22:145 - http://law.wustl.edu/Journal/22/p145Martin.pdf</ref> and ];<ref name="UN" /><ref name="JLP" />,<ref name="JLP" /> ] of violent prisoners in ] cells for 23 or 24 hours a day;<ref name="UN" /><ref>] Report 1998 </ref> 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."<ref name="JLP" /> Such behaviors are illegal, and "professional standards clearly limit staff use of force to that which is necessary to control prisoner disorder."<ref name="JLP" />

	Human Rights Watch raised concerns with ] and medical care for inmates.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/02/28/usdom10223.htm \|title=Inhumane Prison Conditions Still Threaten Life, Health of Alabama Inmates Living with HIV/AIDS, According to Court Filings \|publisher=Human Rights Watch \|accessdate=2006-06-13}}</ref> In a survey of 1,788 male inmates in Midwestern prisons by ], 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.<ref>{{cite web\| title=Sexual Coercion Rates in Seven Midwestern Prisons for Men\| author=] & David Struckman-Johnson\| publisher=The Prison Journal\|year=2000 \|url=http://www.spr.org/pdf/struckman.pdf\|format=PDF}}</ref> Tolerance of serious ] and ] are consistently reported as widespread.{{Fact\|date=December 2007}}<!-- note ref name=AI does not exist at this time --> It has been fought against by organizations such as ].

	The United States has been criticized for having a high amount of non-violent and victim-less offenders incarcerated,<ref name=hrw20061201/><ref>{{cite book\|first=Sasha\|last=Abramsky\|title=Hard Time Blues: How Politics Built a Prison Nation\|publisher=Thomas Dunne Books\|date=January 22, 2002}}</ref><ref>{{cite book\|title=No Price Too High: Victimless Crimes and the Ninth Amendment\|publisher=Praeger Publishers\|isbn=0275950565\|last=Hardaway\|first=Robert\|date=October 30, 2003}}</ref> 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 ].<ref>{{cite web\|title=Prisoners in 2005\|publisher=]: ]\|url=http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p05.pdf\|month=November \| year=2006\|accessdate=2007-06-03\|type=PDF\|format=PDF}}</ref><ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.cjcj.org/pubs/one_million/onemillionexec.html\|title=America's One-Million Nonviolent Prisoners\|publisher=Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice\|accessdate=2007-06-003}}</ref>

	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 ] 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.<ref name="autogenerated3">"Lifers as Teenagers, Now Seeking Second Chance", '']'' October 17, 2007, by ]</ref>

	=== Police brutality ===
	In a 1999 report, ] said it had "documented patterns of ill-treatment across the U.S., including police beatings, unjustified shootings and the use of dangerous restraint techniques."<ref>{{cite web
	\|url=http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=133746465C2D34CA8025690000692D98
	\|title=Race, Rights and Police Brutality
	\|year=1999
	\|publisher=] USA
	\|accessdate=2007-12-22}}</ref>
	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.<ref>{{cite web
	\|url=http://hrw.org/english/docs/1998/07/07/usdom1224.htm
	\|title=Report Charges Police Abuse in U.S. Goes Unchecked
	\|date=July 7, 1998
	\|publisher=]
	\|accessdate=2007-12-22}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite news
	\|url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-17-Copmisconduct_N.htm
	\|title=Police brutality cases on rise since 9/11
	\|publisher=USA Today
	\|date=2007-12-17
	\|accessdate=2007-12-22}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite news
	\|url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9505E6DD1139F93AA15757C0A9679C8B63
	\|title=When the Police Shoot, Who's Counting?
	\|publisher=The New York Times
	\|date=2001-04-29
	\|accessdate=2007-12-22}}</ref>
	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.<ref>{{cite web
	\|url=http://www.aclu.org/police/abuse/19977prs20051006.html
	\|title=Unregulated Use of Taser Stun Guns Threatens Lives, ACLU of Northern California Study Finds
	\|publisher=]
	\|date=October 6, 2005
	\|accessdate=2007-12-22}}</ref>
	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.<ref>{{cite news\|url=http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/22/taser.death/index.html\|title=Man dies after cop hits him with Taser 9 times\|publisher=CNN.com\|date=undated article\|accessdate=2008-09-06}}</ref>

	==Natural disasters==
	===Hurricane Katrina===
	{{main\|Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina}}

	In 2005 the ] of the United States was devastated by ]. The city of ], which was built below sea level, and which includes many inhabitants who could not afford cars with which to evacuate the city during the storm, was particularly badly hit. The government response to the disaster was perceived as being very slow; thousands of people were stranded at the ] for four days without food and water. The ] and the National Prison Project documented mistreatment of the prison population during the flooding.<ref>{{cite web
	\| title = Hurricane Katrina and the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement
	\| publisher = ]
	\| date = January 2008
	\| page = 18-19
	\| url = http://www.southernstudies.org/ISSKatrinaHumanRightsJan08.pdf
	\| accessdate = 2009-05-18 }} See also: {{cite news
	\| last = Sothern
	\| first = Billy
	\| title = Left to Die
	\| pages = 19-22
	\| publisher = ]
	\| date = 2006-01-02}}</ref> The UN Human Rights Committee and other groups allege that these problems reflected racial and economic prejudice; most of those trapped in New Orleans were ] and poor.<ref>{{cite news
	\| title = U.N. experts weigh in on Katrina housing
	\| agency = Associated Press
	\| publisher = ]
	\| date = 2008-02-28
	\| url = http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-02-28-un-katrina_N.htm
	\| accessdate = 2009-05-18}}{{cite news
	\| last = Klapper
	\| first = Bradley
	\| title = U.N. Panel Takes U.S. to Task Over Katrina
	\| work = AP Online
	\| publisher = ''The America's Intelligence Wire''
	\| date = 2006-07-28
	\| accessdate = 2009-05-18}} For more information about race, class and poverty in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, see: {{cite news
	\| last = Alter
	\| first = Jonathan
	\| authorlink = Jonathan Alter
	\| title = The Other America
	\| work = Special Report
	\| publisher = ]
	\| date = 2004-09-19
	\| url = http://www.newsweek.com/id/104467/output/print
	\| accessdate = 2009-05-20}}</ref>

	In 2008, the ], a nonpartisan research center, published a report on "Hurricane Katrina and the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement". The study was one of five published by the ISS on the consequences of Hurricane Katrina, and was a collaborative work produced along with the Brookings-Bern Project on Internal Displacement, co-directed by Walter Kälin, the Representative of the UN Secretary-General on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons. The report found that the U.S. government neglected to adhere to "internationally recognized human rights principles the Bush administration has promoted in other countries."<ref>{{cite news
	\| title = Report says U.S. Katrina response fails to meet its own human rights principles.
	\| publisher = ]
	\| date = 2008-01-16
	\| accessdate = 2009-05-18}} See also: {{cite web
	\| title = Hurricane Katrina and the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement
	\| publisher = ]
	\| date = January 2008
	\| url = http://www.southernstudies.org/ISSKatrinaHumanRightsJan08.pdf
	\| accessdate = 2009-05-18 }}</ref> The ] petitioned the U.S. government to re-classify survivors of Hurricane Katrina as ]s (IDP).<ref>{{cite web
	\| title = The US Human Rights Network's Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) Human Rights Campaign
	\| publisher = ]
	\| date = 2007
	\| url = http://www.ushrnetwork.org/projects/katrina
	\| accessdate = 2009-05-18 }}</ref> According to Executive Director Ajamu Baraka:

	<blockquote>... The status of Katrina victims has been the subject of international scrutiny by both the UN Human Rights Committee in 2006 and the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in 2007, and it will be referred to in a report to the Human Rights Council by the UN Special Rapporteur on Racism next month ... It is time to recognize the ongoing situation of Katrina survivors as an issue of basic human rights and ensure that this most vulnerable constituency is protected. The best way to do that is to adhere to our obligations under international law since, clearly, federal law and the federal government continue to fail.<ref>{{cite web
	\| last = Baraka
	\| first = Ajamu
	\| title = Rights Network Condemns FEMA's Move to Evict Katrina Survivors from temporary Housing
	\| publisher = ]
	\| date = 2009-05-08
	\| url = http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/05/08-3
	\| accessdate = 2009-05-18 }}</ref>
	</blockquote>

	==International human rights==
	===Support for human rights===
	The ] publishes a yearly report "Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The U.S. Record" in compliance with a 2002 law which requires the Department to report on actions taken by the U.S. Government to encourage respect for human rights.<ref name=StateDeptUSRecord>{{cite web\|url=http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/shrd//\|accessdate=2007-06-22\|title=Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The U.S. Record\|publisher=]: ]}}</ref> It also publishes a yearly "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.".<ref name=StateDept>{{cite web\|url=http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/\|accessdate=2007-05-28\|title=Human Rights\|publisher=]: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor}}</ref> In 2006 the United States created a "Human Rights Defenders Fund" and "Freedom Awards."<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.state.gov/g/drl/hr/c20063.htm\|accessdate=2007-05-28\|title=International Human Rights Week\|publisher=]: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor}}</ref> The "Ambassadorial Roundtable Series", created in 2006, are informal discussions between newly-confirmed U.S. ]s and human rights and democracy non-governmental organizations.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.state.gov/g/drl/hr/c18970.htm\|title=Ambassadorial Roundtable Series\|publisher=]: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor\|accessdate=2007-05-28}}</ref> The United States also support democracy and human rights through several other tools.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.state.gov/g/drl/\|title=Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor\|publisher=]: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor\|accessdate=2007-06-22}}</ref>

	The "Human Rights and Democracy Achievement Award" recognizes the exceptional achievement of officers of foreign affairs agencies posted abroad.
	*In 2006 the award went to Joshua Morris of the embassy in Mauritania who recognized necessary democracy and human rights improvements in Mauritania and made democracy promotion one of his primary responsibilities. He persuaded the Government of Mauritania to re-open voter registration lists to an additional 85,000 citizens, which includes a significant number of Afro-Mauritanian minority individuals. He also organized and managed the largest youth-focused democracy project in Mauritania in 5 years.
	*Nathaniel Jensen of the embassy in Vietnam was runner-up. He successfully advanced the human rights agenda on several fronts, including organizing the resumption of a bilateral Human Rights Dialogue, pushing for the release of Vietnam’s prisoners of concern, and dedicating himself to improving religion freedom in northern Vietnam.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.state.gov/g/drl/\|title=2006 Human Rights and Democracy Achievement Award\|publisher=]: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor\|accessdate=2007-06-22}}</ref>

	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.<ref>{{cite web\|author=Jo Becker, children’s rights advocate \|url=http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/11/us-limits-military-aid-nations-using-child-soldiers \|title=US Limits Military Aid to Nations Using Child Soldiers \| Human Rights Watch \|publisher=Hrw.org \|date=2008-12-11 \|accessdate=2009-05-23}}</ref>

	=== Human rights treaties ratified ===

	:''See also ]''

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

	* ] (ICCPR) (ratified with 5 ], 5 understandings, and 4 declarations.)<ref></ref>
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]<ref name="autogenerated1">{{dead link\|date=May 2009}}</ref>
	* ]<ref>http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/newhvstatbytreaty?OpenView</ref>

	Non-binding treaties voted for:
	* ]<ref></ref>

	=== Human rights treaties not signed or signed but not ratified ===
	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.<ref>Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations 1986 Article 18. </ref>

	As well as the ] and the ] of the ] the U.S. has not ratified the following international human rights treaties:<ref name="autogenerated1" />

	* ] (ICCPR)
	* ], aiming at the abolition of the death penalty
	* ]
	* ]
	* ] (1951)
	* ] (1954)
	* ] (1961)
	* ]

	The US has signed but not ratified the following treaties:

	* ] (CEDAW) (signed but not ratified)
	* ] (CRC) (signed but not ratified)

	Non-binding treaties voted against:
	* ] in September 2007.<ref></ref>

	=== The U.S. and the International Bill of Rights ===

	:''See also ]''

	The ] (ICCPR) and the ] (ICESCR) are the legal treaties that enshrine the rights which are outlined in the ]. Together, and along with the ] and ] optional protocols of the ] they constitute the ]<ref></ref><ref></ref> The US has not ratified the ] or either of the optional protocols of the ].

	The US's ratification of the ] was done with five ] – or limits – on the treaty, 5 understandings and 4 declarations. Among these is the rejection of sections of the treaty which prohibit ].<ref></ref><ref></ref> Some, such as ], have noted that with so many reservations, that its implementation has little domestic effect.<ref>{{Citation \| author=The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers \| url=http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/cov-civilpol-rights.htm \| chapter=Covenant on Civil and Political Rights \| title=Teaching Eleanor Roosevelt \| publisher=Elanor Roosevelt National Historical Site \| year=2003 \| location=Hyde Park, New York \| accessdate=2008-05-06}}</ref> Included in the Senate's ratification was the declaration that "the provisions of Article 1 through 27 of the Covenant are not self-executing",<ref>138 Cong. Rec. S4781-84 (1992)</ref> and in a ] stated that the declaration was meant to "clarify that the Covenant will not create a private cause of action in U.S. Courts."<ref>S. Exec. Rep. No. 102-23 (1992)</ref>

	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.

	=== The U.S. and the International Criminal Court===
	:''For more information see ].''

	The U.S. has not ratified the ] of the ] (ICC), which was drafted for prosecuting individuals above the authority of national courts in the event of accusations of ], ], ], and ]. 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.<ref name="US objections to RS"/> 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.<ref></ref> The US Congress also passed a law, ] (ASPA), known by critics as "The Hague Invasion Act," authorizing the use of military force to free any US personnel that are brought before the
	court rather than its own court system.<ref>Human Rights Watch, “.” 3 August 2002. Retrieved 8 January 2007.</ref><ref>John Sutherland, “” ''The Guardian'', 8 July 2002. Retrieved 8 January 2007.</ref>

	After ] ] removed the US signature from the Statute, ], Director of the international human rights organization ] said that this action had put the US "on the wrong side of history" and that:

	<blockquote>Unsigning the treaty will throw the United States into opposition against the most important new institution for enforcing human rights in 50 years.<ref name="BBC News"></ref></blockquote>

	], the first chief prosecutor at ], echoed these sentiments saying:

	<blockquote>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.<ref name="BBC News"/></blockquote>

	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."<ref name="US objections to RS"></ref>

	===The U.S. and the Inter-American human rights system===

	The US is a signatory to the 1948 ] and has signed but not ratified the 1969 ]. It does not accept the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the ]-based ].<ref></ref><ref></ref>

	The US has not ratified any of the other regional human rights treaties of the ],<ref name="autogenerated1" /> which include:

	* ] (1990)
	* ]
	* ] (1985)
	* ] (1994)
	* ] (1994)
	* ]

	=== Coverage of international human rights violations in the media ===

	Studies have found that the ''New York Times'' coverage of worldwide human rights violations is 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.<ref>{{cite journal\|journal=The Harvard International Journal of Press\|url=http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/harvard_international_journal_of_press_politics/v004/4.4caliendo.html\|title=All the News That's Fit to Print? New York Times Coverage of Human-Rights Violations\|volume=Vol. 4\|issue=Number 4, Fall 1999\|pages=48–69\|coauthors=Caliendo, Stephen; Gibney, Mark; Tables, Angela\|accessdate=2007-05-28}}</ref><ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p152798_index.html\|title=Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association\|publisher=\|coauthors=Caliendo, Stephen and Gibney, Mark\|accessdate=2007-05-28\|date=2006-08-31}}</ref> ]'s Secretary General ] 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."<ref name=boston />

	=== Alleged violations of national sovereignty ===
	{{see also\|CIA sponsored regime change\|Allegations of state terrorism by the United States}}
	The ] was a highly publicized ], in which the United States helped illegally sell arms to ] to finance the rebel ] guerrillas, a group implicated in serious human rights violations, in their war against the Nicaraguan government.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.hrw.org/reports/1989/WR89/Nicaragu.htm\|title=Nicaragua\|accessddate=2007-06-03\|publisher=Human Rights Watch}}</ref> The case of '']'' was heard by the ] and the court found that the US had violated ] by supporting guerrillas and by direct action of U.S. personnel, such as laying mines in Nicaragua's harbors and sabotage. The support for the Contras violated the obligation not to intervene in the affairs of another State. The U.S. had also encouraged human rights violations by disseminating the manual "]", but had too little control over the Contras for such violations to be imputable to the U.S.<ref name = "icj"> {{cite web
	\|title =International Court of Justice Year 1986, 27 June 1986, General list No. 70, paragraphs 251, 252, 157, 158, 233.
	\|work =International Court of Justice
	\|url =http://www.gwu.edu/~jaysmith/nicus3.html
	\|accessdate=2006-07-30
	}} </ref> The United States disagreed that the court had jurisdiction or power over its actions and was not bound by its ruling.<ref>{{cite web\|publisher=\|url=http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Nicaragua_KH.html\|title=Nicaragua 1981-1990, excerpted from the book Killing Hope\|author=Blum, William}}</ref><ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.gwu.edu/~jaysmith/nicus3.html\|title=Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14.\|publisher=] (published on ]\|year=1986\|accessdate=2007-05-25}}</ref> The CIA claimed that the purpose of the manual was to "moderate" activities already being done by the Contras.<ref name = "middle"> {{cite web
	\|title =International Law PSCI 0236 > International Law PSCI 0236 > Introduction
	\|work =middlebury.edu
	\|url =https://segue.middlebury.edu/index.php?action=site&site=psci0236a-f06
	\|accessdate=2006-09-05
	}} </ref> The UN ] had the authority to enforce this court decision that the court lacked, and it elected not to do so.

	===Inhumane treatment and torture of captured non-citizens===
	{{See also\|Torture and the United States\|CIA prison system}}

	International and U.S. law prohibits torture and other ill-treatment of any person in custody in all circumstances.<ref>{{cite web\|title=Human Rights Watch: Summary of International and U.S. Law Prohibiting Torture and Other Ill-treatment of Persons in Custody\|date=May 24, 2004\|url=http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm\|accessdate=2007-05-27}}</ref> However, the United States Government has categorized a large number of people as ], a United States classification, which denies the privileges of ] (POW) designation of the ].<ref name=ICRC-210705>] official statement: '''', 21 July 2005</ref>

	Certain practices of the ] and ] have been condemned domestically and internationally as torture.<ref>{{cite news\|url=http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866\|title=CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described\|date=2005-11-18\|accessdate=2007-05-27\|coauthors=Ross, Brain and Eposito, Richard}}</ref> A fierce debate regarding non-standard interrogation techniques<ref>"Non-standard interrogation techniques" are alleged to have at times included:<br />Extended forced maintenance of "]s" such as standing or squatting; psychological tricks and "mind games"; ]; 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 ], 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. ]); and extended exposure to extreme temperatures below freezing or above 120 °F (48 °C).</ref> 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 ]. According to a January 2006 ] 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."<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/media/2006_alerts/etn_0222_dic.htm\|title=Human Rights First Releases First Comprehensive Report on Detainee Deaths in U.S. Custody\|publisher=]\|date=2006-02-22\|accessdate=2007-05-28}}</ref>

	====Abu Ghraib prison abuse====
	{{see also\|Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse}}
	] and ] of the ] posing with prisoners ordered to form a human pyramid in ].]]

	In 2004, photos showing humiliation and abuse of prisoners were leaked from ], 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.<ref name=AbuGhraibAbuse>{{cite news\|last=Higham\|first=Scott\|coauthors=Stephens, Joe\|page=A01\|date=2004-05-21\|accessdate=2007-06-23\|title=New Details of Prison Abuse Emerge\|publisher=Washington Post\|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43783-2004May20.html}}</ref> ], 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."<ref></ref>

	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.<ref name=AbuGhraibAbuse/> Six military personnel were charged with prisoner abuse in the ] scandal. The harshest sentence was handed out to ], who received a 10 year sentence to be served in a military prison and a demotion to private; the other offenders received lesser sentences.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://abcnews.go.com/International/popup?id=140764\|publisher=]\|accessdate=2007-05-28\|title=Prisoner Abuse: The Accused}}</ref>

	In their report ''The Road to Abu Ghraib'', ] describe how:
	<blockquote>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 Guantnamo 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.<ref></ref></blockquote>

	===="Enhanced interrogation" and waterboarding====

	{{see also\|Waterboarding\|Enhanced interrogation techniques}}

	On February 6, 2008, the CIA director General ] stated that the CIA had used waterboarding on three prisoners during 2002 and 2003, namely ], ] and ].<ref>
	{{cite web
	\|url=http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/02/cia-chief-confirms-use-of-waterboarding.php
	\|title=CIA chief confirms use of waterboarding on 3 terror detainees \| Jurist Legal News & Research
	\|publisher=University of Pittsburgh School of Law
	\|accessdate=2008-05-13
	\|last=Price
	\|first=Caitlin
	}}
	</ref><ref name=TheAustralian>{{cite web\|date=2008-02-07\|url=http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23170732-2703,00.html\|title=CIA finally admits to waterboarding\|publisher=The Australian\|accessdate=2008-02-18}}</ref>

	The June 21, 2004 issue of '']'' stated that the ], a 2002 legal memorandum drafted by former OLC lawyer ] 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, ], who had turned uncooperative ... and was drafted after White House meetings convened by George W. Bush's chief counsel, ], along with Defense Department general counsel ] and ], Vice President ]'s counsel, who discussed specific interrogation techniques", citing "a source familiar with the discussions". Amongst the methods they found acceptable was waterboarding.<ref name='Newsweek WB_062104'>{{cite news \| first=Michael \| last=Hirsh \| coauthors= John Barry, Daniel Klaidman \| title=A tortured debate: amid feuding and turf battles, lawyers in the White House discussed specific terror-interrogation techniques like 'water-boarding' and 'mock-burials' \| date=2004-06-21 \| publisher=Newsweek \| url =http://www.newsweek.com/id/54093/page/1 \| accessdate = 2007-12-20 \| language = }}</ref>

	In November 2005, ] reported that former CIA agents claimed that the CIA engaged in a modern form of waterboarding, along with five other "]," against suspected members of ].

	], ], 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 ] should be prosecuted under the principle of ].<ref name="Louise Arbour">{{cite web \|url=http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=96287 \|title=Waterboarding qualifies as torture: UN \|accessdate=2008-02-24 \|work=}}</ref>

	Bent Sørensen, Senior Medical Consultant to the ] and former member of the United Nations ] has said:

	<blockquote>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.<ref name="Bent Sørensen">Bent Sørensen on waterboarding as torture
	* International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims, February 12, 2008 </ref></blockquote>

	Lt. Gen. ], the director of the ], concurred by stating, in a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, that he believes waterboarding violates ].<ref name="Maples">Violating international law
	* by ], ], February 27, 2008
	* By Paul Kiel, ], February 27, 2008</ref>

	The CIA director testified that waterboarding has not been used since 2003.<ref>, ''Associated Press'', February 7, 2008</ref>

	In April 2009, the ] released four memos in which government lawers from the Bush administration approved tough interrogation methods used against 28 terror suspects. The rough tactics range from ] (simulated drowning) to keeping suspects naked and denying them solid food.<ref name="waterboarding1"></ref>

	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 ]. These additional techniques include keeping detainees in a painful standing position for long periods (Used often, once for 180 hours),<ref></ref> using a plastic neck collar to slam detainees into walls, keeping the detainee's cell cold for long periods, beating and kicking the detainee, ] placed in a confinement box (the suspect had a fear of ]), sleep-deprivation, prolonged shackling, and threats to a detainee's family. One of the memos also authorized a method for combining multiple techniques.<ref name="waterboarding1"/><ref></ref>

	Details from the memos also included the number of times that techniques such as ] were used. A footnote said that one detainee was waterboarded 83 times in one month, while another was waterboarded 183 times in a month.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://documents.nytimes.com/justice-department-memos-on-interrogation-techniques#p=121\|title=Justice Department Memos on Interrogation Techniques \|accessdate=2009-04-30\|publisher=New York Times}}</ref>
	<ref name="programme1"></ref> This may have gone beyond even what was allowed by the CIA's own directives, which limit waterboarding to 12 times a day.<ref name="programme1"/>
	The ] website carried reports from an un-named US official who claimed that these were the number of pourings, not the number of sessions.<ref name="FNC20090428Abrams">, Joseph Abrams, '']'', April 28, 2009</ref>

	"We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history," President ] said.<ref name="waterboarding1"/>

	==== Guantánamo Bay ====
	The United States maintains a detention center at its military base at ], Cuba and its executive branch controversially asserts that prisoners held there are not subject to constitutional protections.{{Fact\|date=September 2008}} Prisoners there generally do not receive trials and detention is indefinite.{{Fact\|date=September 2008}} The US 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.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2007/Legal%20basis%20Guantanamo%20Detainees%20OGC%20FINAL.pdf\|format=PDF\|publisher=]\|accessdate=2007-11-17\|title=Guantanamo Detainees Info Sheet #1 – November 14, 2005}}</ref> However, no-one has ever previously declared war on an abstract concept (''terror''), and it is questionable whether the Geneva Conventions apply in this case.{{Fact\|date=September 2008}} The legal and political status of this policy is evolving.{{Fact\|date=September 2008}}

	A delegation of ]s to ] reported that interrogation techniques used in the detention center amount to degrading treatment in violation of the ICCPR and the ].<ref></ref>

	In 2005 ] 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 USA’s detentions and interrogations in the "war on terror".<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510632005\|title=Guantánamo and beyond: The continuing pursuit of unchecked executive power\|publisher=Amnesty International\|date=2005-05-13\|accessdate=2007-05-29}}</ref>

	Amnesty International also condemned the Guantánamo facility as "the ] 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 ]. The ICRC, in response to the US-led military campaign in Afghanistan, published a paper on the subject . See ]. HRW cites two sergeants and a captain accusing U.S. troops of torturing prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/09/25/usint11776.htm\|publisher=Human Rights Watch\|date=2005-09-24\|accessdate=2007-05-29\|title=New Account of Torture by U.S. Tropps, Soldiers Say Failures by Command Led to Abuse}}</ref>

	However, former ] governor ], for example, has stated that the conditions in ] are better than most US prisons.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280457,00.html \|title=Huckabee Says Guantanamo Bay Offers Better Conditions to Detainees Than Most U.S. Prisons - You Decide 2008 \|publisher=FOXNews.com \|date=2007-06-11 \|accessdate=2009-05-23}}</ref>

	Many Prisoners have also stated that Guantanamo Bay is better than Home, with three full meals a day.

	Two Tunisian men who were allowed to return home to Tunisia in September 2007 found themselves once again in jail and say they would rather return to Guantanamo,<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,504237,00.html \|title=Former Detainees Abused Back Home: 'I'd Rather Return to Guantanamo' - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International \|publisher=Spiegel.de \|date= \|accessdate=2009-05-23}}</ref> despite Tunisia's pledge to the US that they would be treated humanely, which cast doubts on the morality of allowing other prisoners to be released into countries known to utilize torture.

	==== Extraordinary rendition ====

	{{See also\|Extraordinary rendition by the United States}}

	United States citizens and foreign nationals are occasionally captured (and at times claimed to be ]) 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 ].

	According to '']'', "The most common destinations for rendered suspects are ], ], ], and Jordan, all of which have been cited for human-rights violations by the State Department, and are known to torture suspects."<ref name=NewYorker>{{cite news\|first=Jane\|last=Mayer\|date=2005-02-14\|accessdate=2007-05-29\|title=Outsourcing Torture\|publisher=]\|url=http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/02/14/050214fa_fact6?currentPage=2}}</ref>

	===== Notable cases =====

	In November 2001, ], a U.S. citizen, was captured by ] forces in ], ], amongst hundreds of surrendering ] 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 ], but when it was discovered that he was a U.S. citizen, he was transferred to naval brig in ], ] and then he was transferred brig in ], ]. The ] identified him as an ] and denied him access to an attorney or the court system, despite his ] right to ]. In 2002 Hamdi's father filed a '']'' 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 '']'' 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, ], a ] citizen, was apprehended by ] authorities when traveling to ] because his name was similar to ], an alleged metor to the al-Qaeda ]. After being held in a motel in Macedonia for over three weeks he was transferred to the CIA and ] to Afghanistan. While held in Afghanistan, El-Masri claims he was sodomized, beaten, and repeatedly interrorgated about alleged terrorist ties.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/18/AR2006051802107.html\|title=Lawsuit Against CIA is Dismissed\|first=Jerry\|last=Markon\|date=2006-05-19\|accessdate=2007-05-29\|publisher=Washington Post}}</ref> After being in custody for five months, ] learned of his detention and ordered his release. El-Masri was released at night on a desolate road in ], without apology, or funds to return home. He was intercepted by Albanian guards, who believed him to be a terrorist due to his haggard and unkept appearance. He was subsequently reunited with his wife who had returned to her family in ], with their children, because she thought her husband had abandoned them. Using ], scientists at the Bavarian archive for geology in ] analyzed his hair and verified that he was malnourished during his disappearance.<ref name="derspiegel050214">Georg Mascolo, Holger Stark: ''''. SPIEGEL ONLINE, February 14, 2005</ref>

	However, in 2007, U.S. President Bush signed an ] banning the use of torture in the ]'s interrogation program.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2008 \|title=Map of Freedom in the World \|publisher=freedomhouse.org \|date=2004-05-10 \|accessdate=2009-05-23}}</ref>

	==United Nations Human Rights Council==
	{{Main\|United Nations Human Rights Council}}
	The ] has no ] or ] except to make recommendations to the ], which has no authority or jurisdiction under the ] to take any action except to advise policies to the ].

	The United States has refused to seek a seat on the ] (UNHRC) since 2006 and on March 5, 2007, the U.S. State Department asserted the UNHRC had lost its credibility since "here has been a nearly singular focus on issues related to Israel, for example, to the exclusion of examining issues of real concern to the international system, whether that's in Cuba or Burma or in North Korea."<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2007/mar/81471.htm\|publisher=]\|title=Daily Press Briefing\|date=2007-05-06\|accessdate=2006-06-24}}</ref> The United States has also criticized the lack of safeguards against severe human rights violators taking a seat.<ref>{{ UN document \|docid=A-60-PV.72 \|body=General Assembly \|type=Verbotim Report \|session=60 \|meeting=72 \|page=5 \|anchor=pg005-bk02 \|date=15 March 2006 \|meetingtime=11:00 \|speakername=Mr. Toro Jiménez \| speakernation=Venezuela \|accessdate=2007-09-19 }}</ref>

	On May 18, 2006, The United Nations Human Rights Council released a report, which urged the United States to adopt their recommendations. The recommendations included: holding senior official who acquiesced, authorized, or consented to acts of torture committed by their subordinates; closing all secret prisons; closing Guantanamo Bay detention camp; registering detainees captured in the ]; and ending extraordinary rendition. The report rejected the United States' claim the ] does not apply to U.S. personnel acting outside the U.S. or acting during wartime and stated " has the obligation to implement the Convention against Torture in full at the domestic level." The report further criticized how the United States allows executions by lethal injection, houses children in adult jails, and subjects prisoners to prolonged isolation in ].<ref>{{cite news\|title=U.N. Torture Committee Critical of U.S.\|url=http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/05/19/usdom13418.htm\|publisher=Human Rights Watch\|date=2006-05-19\|accessdate=2007-06-14}}</ref><ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/AdvanceVersions/CAT.C.USA.CO.2.pdf\|title=Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture\|publisher=]\|date=2007-05-18\|accessdate=2007-06-14\|format=PDF}}</ref>

	In May 2007, Martin Scheinin, a United Nations rapporteur on rights in countering terrorism, released a preliminary report for the United Nations Human Rights Council. The report stated the United States violated international law, particularly the ], by the "enhanced interrogation techniques" used at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and criticized the classification of ]s and the 2001 ]; however, the report stated " is a country which still has a great deal to be proud of."<ref>{{cite news\|url=http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2519217620070526\|title=U.N. expert faults U.S. on human rights in terror laws\|date=2007-05-25\|accessdate=2007-06-03\|first=Evelyn\|last=Leopold\|publisher=Reuters}} Also published on , on , and on .</ref>

	The ] offered an opinion that the persisting racial poverty gaps in the U.S. amount to human rights violations.<ref>Rizvi, Haider. . (published on ). ]. Retrieved on ]. ()</ref>

	The ] lacks any legal authority except to make recommendations to the UN ]. The Security Council has received all of the recommendations detailed and has not found any violations of any human rights or international laws. It must be noted that the United States has been, since the inception of the UN, a permanent member of the Security Council with full veto rights.

	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 ] took up a non-binding 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.<ref name="autogenerated3" />

	== Further assessments ==
	According to ], an annual report by US based think-tank ], 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 ], which rate regime and authority characteristics, covering the years 1800-2004, has ranked the United States with the highest possible rating since 1871.<ref></ref>

	According to the ]'s ], the US ranks 17 out of 167 nations.

	According to the annual ] published by ], due to wartime restrictions the United States was ranked 53rd from the top in 2006 (out of 168), 44th in 2005.<ref>{{cite web\|month=October \| year=2005\|title=North Korea, Eritrea and Turkmenistan are the world’s “black holes” for news\|url=http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=554\|publisher=]\|accessdate=2007-05-29}}</ref> 22nd in 2004,<ref>{{cite web\|month=October \| year=2004\|title=East Asia and Middle East have worst press freedom records\|url=http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=11715\|publisher=Reporters Without Borders\|accessdate=2007-05-29}}</ref> 31st in 2003<ref>{{cite web\|month=October \| year=2003\|title=Cuba second from last, just ahead of North Korea\|url=http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=8247\|publisher=Reporters Without Borders\|accessdate=2007-05-29}}</ref> and 17th in 2002,<ref>{{cite web\|month=October \| year=2002\|title=Reporters Without Borders publishes the first worldwide press freedom index\|url=http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=4116\|publisher=Reporters Without Borders\|accessdate=2007-05-29}}</ref>

	According to the annual ], which was published by ], the United States was ranked 20th from the top in 2006 (out of 163), 17th in 2005, 18th in 2003, and 16th in 2002.<!--Not sure if this is a human right issue-->

	According to the annual ] index of 2007, the United States was ranked an "endemic surveillance society", scoring only 1.5 out of 5 privacy points.<ref>{{cite web\|month=December \| year=2007\|title=Leading surveillance societies in the EU and the World 2007\|url=http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd=x-347-559597\|publisher=]\|accessdate=2009-01-01}}</ref>

	==See also==
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]

	== References ==
	{{Reflist\|2}}

	==Further reading==
	*{{cite book
	\| last = Ignatieff
	\| first = Michael
	\| authorlink = Michael Ignatieff
	\| title = American Exceptionalism and Human Rights
	\| publisher = Princeton University Press
	\| date = 2005
	\| isbn = 0691116482}}
	*{{cite book
	\| last = Lauren
	\| first = Paul Gordon
	\| authorlink =
	\| title = The Evolution of International Human Rights: Visions Seen
	\| publisher = University of Pennsylvania Press
	\| edition = Second
	\| date = 2003
	\| isbn = 081221854X}}
	*{{cite book
	\| last = Shapiro
	\| first = Steven R.
	\| coauthors = Human Rights Watch, American Civil Liberties Union
	\| title = Human Rights Violations in the United States: A Report on U.S. Compliance with The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
	\| publisher = ]
	\| date = 1993
	\| isbn = 1564321223}}
	*{{cite book
	\| editors = Soohoo, Cynthia; Albisa, Catherine; Davis, Martha F.
	\| title = Bringing Human Rights Home: A History of Human Rights in the United States
	\| volume = I
	\| publisher = Praeger Publishers
	\| date = 2007
	\| isbn = 0275988228}}
	*{{cite book
	\| editors = Soohoo, Cynthia; Albisa, Catherine; Davis, Martha F.
	\| title = Bringing Human Rights Home: From Civil Rights to Human Rights
	\| volume = II
	\| publisher = Praeger Publishers
	\| date = 2007
	\| isbn = 0275988236}}
	*{{cite book
	\| editors = Soohoo, Cynthia; Albisa, Catherine; Davis, Martha F.
	\| title = Bringing Human Rights Home: Portraits of the Movement
	\| volume = III
	\| publisher = Praeger Publishers
	\| date = 2007
	\| isbn = 0275988244}}
	*{{cite book
	\| last = Weissbrodt
	\| first = David
	\| coauthors = Connie de la Vega
	\| authorlink =
	\| title = International Human Rights Law: An Introduction
	\| publisher = University of Pennsylvania Press
	\| date = 2007
	\| isbn = 0812240324}}
	*{{cite book
	\| last = Yount
	\| first = David
	\| authorlink =
	\| title = How the Quakers Invented America
	\| publisher = Rowman & Littlefield
	\| date = 2007
	\| isbn = 0742558339}}

	== External links ==
	* from ]
	* from ]
	* from ]
	* from ]
	* from Amnesty International
	* from Human Rights Watch
	*
	* from United Nations
	* produced by the government of the People's Republic of China

	{{North America topic\|Human rights in}}
	{{Life in the United States}}
	{{United States topics}}

	]
	]

	]
	]
	]
	]

Revision as of 01:20, 23 May 2009

Redirect to:

Human rights and the United States