Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Catherina

(35,568 posts)
67. That's part of what's prompting the frantic defense. ACLU on Obama's 1st U.N. treaty body review
Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:24 PM
Feb 2013
U.S. Violating Human Rights of Children, Says U.N. Committee
By Allison Frankel, ACLU Human Rights Program at 11:41am

The Obama Administration recently underwent its first U.N. treaty body review, and the resulting concluding observations made public yesterday should be a cause for alarm
. The observations, issued by independent U.N. experts tasked with monitoring compliance with the international treaty on the rights of children in armed conflict (formally known as the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict or "OPAC&quot , paint a dark picture of the treatment of juveniles by the U.S. military in Afghanistan: one where hundreds of children have been killed in attacks and air strikes by U.S. military forces, and those responsible for the killings have not been held to account even as the number of children killed doubled from 2010 to 2011; where children under 18 languish in detention facilities without access to legal or full humanitarian assistance, or adequate resources to aid in their recovery and reintegration as required under international law. Some children were abused in U.S. detention facilities, and others are faced with the prospect of torture and ill-treatment if they are transferred to Afghan custody.

By ratifying OPAC in 2002, the U.S. committed to guaranteeing basic protections to children in armed conflict zones, and to submit periodic reports on the implementation of its treaty obligations to the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child. We wrote about the latest U.S. report, released in November, which revealed that over 200 children have been held in U.S. custody in Afghanistan since 2008, some for lengthy periods of time. During its review of the U.S. on January 16, the Committee posed critical questions about the treatment of children by the U.S. military and issued recommendations to remedy these human rights violations.

These recommendations include taking "concrete and firm precautionary measures to prevent indiscriminate use of force" particularly against children, and ensuring all allegations of unlawful use of force are "investigated in a transparent, timely and independent manner" and that "children and families victims of attacks and air strikes do always receive redress and compensation." In regard to the detention of juveniles, the Committee urged the U.S. to ensure that all children under 18 are detained separately from adults and guaranteed access to free and independent legal assistance as well as an independent complaints mechanism. Importantly, considering the previous U.S. response to the Committee revealed that the average age of children detained by U.S. forces is only 16 years old and the average length of stay for juveniles in U.S. military custody has been approximately one year, the Committee recommended children be detained only "as measures of last resort and for the shortest possible period of time and that in all cases alternatives to detention are given priority."

The Committee also stressed that allegations of torture and other forms of mistreatment must be investigated and the perpetrators brought to justice, and that no child should be transferred to Afghan custody if "there are substantial grounds for the danger of being subject to torture and ill treatment." The Committee specifically mentioned the case of Omar Kadr, a former child soldier who was detained by U.S. forces at the age of 15 and was subjected to torture and a systematic program of harsh and highly coercive interrogations at the American prisons at Guantánamo Bay and Bagram.

...

http://www.aclu.org/blog/human-rights/us-violating-human-rights-children-says-un-committee

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Hogwash JuniperLea Feb 2013 #1
What does Romney have to do with Democrats who don't have principles? Catherina Feb 2013 #13
You're right Romney has nothing to do with it. ProSense Feb 2013 #17
So you would support this policy if McCain were president? Jakes Progress Feb 2013 #54
Someone needs to go back to school... JuniperLea Feb 2013 #71
get some new material.. frylock Feb 2013 #14
Here's what one supporter wrote Catherina Feb 2013 #19
a lot of folks trusted bush's judgement as well.. frylock Feb 2013 #22
Now there's an intellectual role model Catherina Feb 2013 #25
How about Al Franken? Mnpaul Feb 2013 #46
I'm the wrong person to ask because I can't stand Al Franken Catherina Feb 2013 #66
cowardice and political expediency frylock Feb 2013 #72
Same as it is here and now... JuniperLea Feb 2013 #70
I wish you apologists would quit with the straw men arguments. Fantastic Anarchist Feb 2013 #65
I stand with Obama, and John Bolton and Michelle Malkin and Peter King--oh, wait a minute. Comrade Grumpy Feb 2013 #2
If people could hurry up and get to the "oh, wait a minute" part Catherina Feb 2013 #39
That's ProSense Feb 2013 #3
Ooh, he must really get under your skin. Comrade Grumpy Feb 2013 #5
Feingold agrees with "John Bolton and Michelle Malkin and Peter King" ProSense Feb 2013 #8
So silly whatchamacallit Feb 2013 #11
"Yes democrats are never wrong and never change their minds..." ProSense Feb 2013 #12
I missed the debate part whatchamacallit Feb 2013 #15
What ProSense Feb 2013 #20
He's focused on the similarities between whatchamacallit Feb 2013 #27
Here: ProSense Feb 2013 #29
People like this John2 Feb 2013 #33
+1 jazzimov Feb 2013 #45
But you support Hagel for Defense, and HE supported the illegal Iraq war. Hypocritical? Yes. Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #48
Bam! whatchamacallit Feb 2013 #49
LOL! ProSense Feb 2013 #56
I do? ProSense Feb 2013 #55
I can not stand those who voted for that war. You get bent about one but the other, the actual Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #59
I should add that ProSense Feb 2013 #10
Yep. "Smoke 'em out", "Bring it on" redux. But, of course, "Not as bad". Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #4
Unprincipled hackery in 3...2...1... whatchamacallit Feb 2013 #6
I'm can see that several people on my ignore list have already made an appearance Catherina Feb 2013 #21
Bingo! whatchamacallit Feb 2013 #28
No new material? It gets so old Catherina Feb 2013 #34
Wow... whatchamacallit Feb 2013 #42
If I'd supported the Iraq war, no one on the left would ever listen to me again. Robb Feb 2013 #7
Polls in the weeks leading up to the war showed that 50% of Democrats supported the war. Luminous Animal Feb 2013 #44
Or, if you'd supported the Iraq war, you could be about to become Sec of Defense. Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #50
Hagel's got *serious* game. Robb Feb 2013 #68
Yep. Arctic Dave Feb 2013 #9
Greenwald looks nothing like Bush, although they were on the same page on Iraq. Ikonoklast Feb 2013 #16
And Obama is on the same page as bush and the PNAC. Arctic Dave Feb 2013 #18
you still buying Obama's bullshit about not voting for IWR.. frylock Feb 2013 #24
Well, ProSense Feb 2013 #26
Which Chuck Hagel supported and is about to be rewarded for that action by Obama. Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #57
Maybe you should stop assuming. n/t ProSense Feb 2013 #58
Greenwald. LOL...nt SidDithers Feb 2013 #23
He gets to talk to the world about you whatchamacallit Feb 2013 #31
"Authentic frontier gibberish!"... SidDithers Feb 2013 #32
Beat me to it. union_maid Feb 2013 #36
George Washington warned us about this kind of bullshit davidn3600 Feb 2013 #30
Great post! whatchamacallit Feb 2013 #37
Washington was right, Jefferson too Catherina Feb 2013 #38
Yours is the most important post on DU right now, IMO. woo me with science Feb 2013 #51
+100000000 woo me with science Feb 2013 #52
It's not just ProSense Feb 2013 #61
That post definitely deserved the heart I just gave you and hearty applause! tpsbmam Feb 2013 #73
Greenfield, yawn. He makes money for his alt-media-anti-views. Good money graham4anything Feb 2013 #35
Let's not talk about principles until Greenwald et al pony up HOW MANY DEAD PEOPLE are too many patrice Feb 2013 #40
FOUR fingers are FOUR fingers just as much in Rio de Janeiro as they are in Kansas, Glen. nt patrice Feb 2013 #41
Glen Greenwald is a "citizen of the archipelagos" who makes a living out of propaganda. nt patrice Feb 2013 #43
Not all dems are really dems, I'm talking about picking anyone out on the street Puzzledtraveller Feb 2013 #47
That mentality is stoked by the corporate media. woo me with science Feb 2013 #62
Once everything including people is reduced nineteen50 Feb 2013 #53
he's right stupidicus Feb 2013 #60
That's part of what's prompting the frantic defense. ACLU on Obama's 1st U.N. treaty body review Catherina Feb 2013 #67
Just as many "progressives" will "trust the president" (but never Bush) to destroy Social Security Faryn Balyncd Feb 2013 #63
Faith-based politics? Catherina Feb 2013 #69
K&R woo me with science Feb 2013 #64
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»"DOJ kill list memo ...»Reply #67