Resolved: The United States Must Comply with International Human Rights Treaties.
ce...@yale.edu
FLOOR MEETING
NOVEMBER 15, 2005 - SSS 114
The Speaker calls the meeting to order at 7:49 pm.
The chairmen make their announcements.
The President notes that this is her last announcement. Thanks everyone
for an amazing semester with a vast array of topics: from the local
aldermanic debate to Bolton's debate. Thanks the Executive Board,
Constitutional Committee, and Advisory Committee. Is happy to
introduce Ginger. Has been a civil rights leader and now teaches at
San Francisco State University. She founded Meiklejohn Civil Liberties
Institute and is still a director there.
The President of the Yale Political Union moves the topic Resolved: The
United States Must Comply with International Human Rights Treaties.
Ms. Ginger starts off by introducing herself. She is from the Midwest
and is an English Quaker, Irish Catholic, Lithuanian Jew, socialist,
journalist, and lawyer. People wake up knowing that they can't be in
touch with family, can't talk to a lawyer and don't know why
they're being held. They are in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. US
troops are dropping bombs on cars that have one person they want, but
other people die too. US is signatory to Nuremberg principles.
Concept born in 1945 after WWII: not enough to beat the Axis powers,
but we should also try the leaders. Being ordered to commit a war
crime is not an excuse to do it if you can help it. Heads of state can
be condemned as well. UN charter is the law everywhere. Every treaty
is the law of the land. Doesn't think Ambassador Bolton understands
issues. No nation should use force against another
territory...doesn't say "except George Bush". US has 10,700
nuclear weapons and many are ready all the time. International Court
of Justice is one of 6 organs of UN. It made ruling that nuclear
weapons are illegal unanimously (included members of US and other
countries that have nukes). UN method of enforcement (no UN army) is
mobilization of shame. People make reports all the time. They get
idea of how to overcome problems with this. Bush Sr. went to China and
condemned them for human rights violations but they called him a
hypocrite. He went back and got treaties ratified...but it didn't
mean much. Article 2.1 says that there shouldn't be any distinction
based on race, etc. US was required to make report about that in 1993.
They did in 1995. A second report about prisons being solely for
rehabilitation, equality, labor unions, etc was supposed to be filed in
1998. Next report due in 2003...didn't happen either. Finally
submitted a report, but refused to talk about Abu Ghraib. In March,
this issue will be discussed at UN building in NY. Report on torture
and degrading treatment due in 1994. Report was first submitted in
2000. 2nd report just submitted. Said they wouldn't discuss
anything outside of 50 states. Pakistani was arrested after 9/11 for
no reason. Detained by INS. When he was released, was deported.
Eventually granted political asylum, but was murdered 2 weeks after
deported. US is violating rights of people inside US because they
"look a little funny". Much worse than the McCarthy period.
People are often detained and beaten up. US constitution and treaties
are both violated. Not clear that US will actually enforce treaty
about race. If racial discrimination didn't exist, we'd have more
people of color in this room. Also, people wouldn't say that
they're African, but from Ghana, etc. UN should promote full
employment and higher standards of living without consideration of
race, sex, or religion. This passed in Berkeley, CA. Not really
necessary because UN charter is law of Berkeley, but people don't
really think about it. When it comes to reporting, US isn't unaware
that it has to happen. They demand other countries to do it on trading
agreements. Present reports are late and inaccurate. If you ask
Mandela, UN made a big difference in South Africa. Question isn't
simply if you think that US should or shouldn't follow treaties, but
how should they do it. Individuals need to actively participate in
struggle to enforce treaties. Suggests that people read the reports on
violation of human rights and UN charter. Then decide to change life
to include UN.
Ms. Jennifer Sarah Bolton asks how reporting stops things from
happening. Other countries don't enforce laws.
Ginger: other countries have been criticized and have changed
sometimes. It's not perfect. US is more delinquent. US has also
ratified the least number of treaties. It is one method that
works...not rapid, but important.
A gentleman asks Ms. Ginger to elaborate why US should comply with laws
Ginger: should comply because it's the law. Treaties just enunciate
provisions in Constitution.
Mr. Silas Kulkarni asks who is best qualified to judge when US is
violating human rights and why.
Ginger: committees consist of members from different countries. Not
diplomats and not paid. Not representatives of government...represent
"the truth". They're professors, etc.
Kulkarni: Why is it that professors from Russia are more qualified than
professors from US?
Ginger: it's not that they're more qualified...they all are. US
delegate can also speak about what's raised. There are different
points of view.
Mr. Alan Kennedy-Shaffer says that the US Senate revoked right of
detainees to take case to the US Supreme Court. Asks Ms. Ginger to
elaborate on that...do we have hope of making progress while Bush is in
office?
Ginger: Congress and Supreme Court are supposed to enforce
Constitution. Decision violates 5th amendment. Congress can't
overrule Constitution. Due process doesn't say that it applies just
to US citizens. Talks about Bush and Cheney being impeached. If you
don't believe in killing, let your draft board know that you're a
conscientious objector. It's up to you if Bush continues to go down
this path.
Mr. Rob Millie asks if it's easier to take offender to court than to
write reports.
Ginger: Warren court was conscientious. Doesn't think that we would
win if we took offenders to court. We have to write to congressmen.
The President of the Yale Political Union moves that we thank Ms.
Ginger for a fine speech on the floor of the Yale Political Union.
Speaking in the negative, Mr. Dave Kasten says that the big question
wasn't answered by Ginger. On one hand, US is a violator, but also
says that we should send a report saying that we're bad people.
It's better to say that we don't really agree with the treaty
commitments. We should have the guts to say that we don't agree with
them instead of hoping they disappear. It's true that treaties are
binding if they don't contradict with constitutional rights.
Constitution comes first. International Criminal Court doesn't have
due process law like we do. Can't violate sovereignty. There's a
difference between accepting fundamental notions of human rights and
signing up for everything. We're not willing to accept all
obligations that come with international law. We don't want to cede
rights to UN. Problem with International Court of Justice is that
it's anti-American. Representatives are there to check on US. We
SHOULD have nuclear weapons. It's like saying that Russia and China
(who violate human rights) should have nuclear weapons, but US
shouldn't. There's a problem when Syria is elected to human rights
commission.
Ms. Rachel Homer asks when UN treaties violate the Constitution.
Kasten: imposes extra-national law. If people believe that Bush should
be tried for being a human rights violator, it's not supposed to be
international, should be tried by peers.
The Chairman of the Party of the Right asks if Mr. Kasten thinks that
giving up sovereignty can make a nation stronger...should NATO have
been made up?
Kasten: An international body telling a country to not defend itself
from another nation is different from NATO, which is a bunch of nations
getting together voluntarily to defend each other.
In the affirmative, Ms. Sophie Brill wants to bring it back to basic
issues. Should focus on issues of human rights. Wanted to address
Kasten's idea of sovereignty. If you take it seriously, need to take
Constitution seriously. Part of the notion of sovereignty is to abide
by treaties. Issue is when there's a conflict between an American
and non-American. A guy is being held because he came forward and said
that he saw violations. He wrote to Senator McCain asking about what
can and can't do. Signing on to treaties gives us tools to win war
on terror. We can uphold other countries to treaties. Kasten said
that some treaties go too far...but if we don't agree with treaty, we
shouldn't sign it. Difference between how we interpret international
law or whether or not we should follow them. Should come to table with
idea of following treaties you sign.
The Vice President asks if Ms. Brill has engaged in activities outside
of the law. We frequently make decisions against law. People at UN
don't necessarily represent us. If there is legitimate reason to
disobey law sometimes, can it apply to UN?
Brill: difference between breaking a law and not accepting
consequences. Can go over speed limit and think it's ok, but if she
gets a ticket, she won't try "civil disobedience".
Mr. Aaron Margolis asks if a nation's obligation to protect citizens
is more important than international treaty...when these are
conflicting, what's more important?
Brill: a lot of the time, that obligation has a limit. Weighing
process happens when something gets ratified.
Mr. Alexander Yergin gives the next speech in the negative. It is
dangerous to follow to the UN charter. Full employment? That sounds
like Keynesianism! Understands that US should honor treaties. Thinks
that US should only pursue policies if they're moral or necessary.
Why should we make policies based on what the rest of the world does?
Doesn't trust the rest of the world. US should be final arbiter.
Ms. Brill asks if Mr. Yergin knew that others don't care about
treaties, would he want to sign a treaty with them?
Yergin: well, most countries don't abide by treaties. Diplomacy is
more about war and peace than human rights.
Mr. Ross Kennedy-Shaffer says that we agreed that countries wouldn't
just attack each other. If we signed the treaty, it becomes law. We
have the responsibility that if we think it's bad, we should
recognize that and overrule it rather than ignore it.
Yergin: we should make a statement that says that we don't agree with
it and override it. We should play by the rules.
Next, in the affirmative, Mr. Matthew Grant notes that we've become
too legalistic and worried about minute details. Sure, US doesn't
follow treaties to the letter. It's not that big of a deal. People
accept that this is how it's going to be. We have committed major
abuses in Iraq War. When US behaves like this and violates treaties,
then the world takes notice. Treaties are tools of international
diplomacy. Violating human rights hurts our moral authority. US needs
to follow treaties.
The Floorleader of the Left asks who should be the arbiter.
Grant: we should police ourselves. US has responsibility to correct
itself. If it's so flagrant, it should be the international
community's right.
The Chairman of the Party of the Right asks if Mr. Grant thinks that
Abu Ghraib is bad because it's bad or because it's in violation of
the law.
Grant: thinks it's bad and shouldn't have happened...it happens to
be against the law too. When we disregard what's moral and treaties,
we forfeit ability to be international leader.
The Vice President, Ms. Oksman, speaks in the negative. Any reasonable
person would say that if we sign treaties, we should follow them.
Concern is why we have treaties and why we agree with them. Why should
decisions be made for US by people that have no connection to US? In
reality, lots of places in the world dislike us. Treaties are used in
political ways to meddle in our affairs for the sake of it. Mr. Grant
made point that we shouldn't have Abu Ghraib because it's wrong.
The fact that we have to sign treaties to tell people that it's wrong
isn't going to help. Gives other countries a legal excuse to meddle
in our affairs. We should talk about issues, but not necessary to sign
treaties.
Ms. Ginger says that the US isn't the only one that's criticized.
Others have to also make a report that will be criticized.
VP: other countries have more stake in criticizing us than we do.
The Floorleader of the Left asks what the mechanism for dealing with
interactions that happen in international sphere is.
VP: most of the examples tonight have been within US or concerning US
citizens. If you're going to go to the US, there are laws that
govern immigration. You can be deported.
FLL: what is system of due process that a non-citizen can go through if
they feel their rights are violated.
VP: international government has no enforcing authority by virtue of
the charter. World government is scary! Unless we want that, we have
to say that there are no rights in international context. We can make
sure that our country makes laws that address these issues. We can't
meaningfully talk about international enforcement.
Mr. Jason Green-Lowe gives the final speech in the affirmative. Wants
to talk about why we should bother with treaties and respect them. In
many senses, US is international nation. We have some past, which is
symbolized by 1856 Republican presidential candidate. Americans are
different because we're individualists and rugged. Other
Republicans, like Eisenhower, commanded victorious armies. It is
profoundly American to use force to defend ourselves, but not use it to
resolve differences. We should negotiate. Should engage with other
countries through international bodies.
Closing Remarks: Ms. Ann Fagan Ginger
Enjoyed coming to the Political Union very much. Nuclear weapons are
illegal because they cause unnecessary hardship. They can't
distinguish between enemies and friends and causes permanent damage to
environment. Says that she has a tradition. It is something she does
at every presentation. Ms. Ginger joins the body and asks everyone to
hold hands and sing "We Shall Overcome".
Once the song is over, the President of the Yale Political Union moves
the previous question.
With a vote of:
Affirmative: 11
Negative: 12
Abstention: 3
The resolution fails.
The Chairman of the Conservative Party moves that we adjourn.
Respectfully submitted,
Maria Gabriela Orochena
Secretary of the Yale Political Union