Saturday, 24 July 2010

Senate Hearing From the International Outlaws of the World,,,

...OR why they are right to refuse...

...OR how America still thinks the West must be won

So Kenny MacAskill and Jack Straw have both said no to the US Senate enquiry on Megrahi. Tony Blair had apparently been invited and indeed his airfare would have been covered, although the Senate are saying this was a draft letter which had been leaked to the press.

However, when you look at the USA's record on implementing International Laws the fact that they are looking to have a hearing into a criminal tried under Scottish Law and released under Scottish jurisdiction on compassionate grounds show how the USA just do not get it. Here is a rundown on some of the human rights treaties that the USA has either not signed or ratified and the company they keep.

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) adopted 1979 USA has yet to ratify it although they have signing it in 1980. They team up with Iran, Nauru, Palau, Somalia, Sudan and Tonga.

Convention on the Rights of a Child (CRC) 1989 USA singed it in 1995 but it has yet to be presented to the Senate for approval. Only Somalia lines up as a fellow none participant.

Convention Against Enforced Disappearance 2006. Only 81 signatories (16 NATO allies) thus far and not in force but USA have not taken any action.

Mine Ban Treaty 1996. Again no action at all from the USA along with China, Russia and 34 other nations.

Convention on Cluster Weapons 2008. Signed by the majority of NAO nations and many other US Allies. But only half the 30 ratifications needed to trigger the convention. Of course the USA are not in the 98 signatories.

Tellingly The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) 2006 enforced in 20088 with 140 signatories. You know the score, no action from the USA.

Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT) 2002 enforced since 2006. Signatories include include the United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany, Austria, France, Spain, the Czech Republic, New Zealand, Brazil, and Mexico. But not the USA.

So before the USA start to probe into another nations legal system and release decisions maybe they should look at their own record on international issue. They have a poor record in signing up to or implementing international actions. so what right do they have to want to interfere. I personally feel that MacAskill, Straw, Blair et al are quite correct in refusung to turn up at the pleasure of the international outlaws of our world. If the USA is not going to support the rights of others as many other states have they have no right to interfere in the humanity of others.


  1. All very good and nice to be able to agree for a change. But what have you to say on the prime minister’s comments concerning the decision being wrong?

  2. What is the difference between Jack Straw and Kenny MacAskill?

    Well, according the BBC (Radio 4 News so it must be true) Jack Straw "declined" the invitation to testify to the Senate Committee and Kenny MacAskill "refused."

    Neural Linguistic Programming anyone

  3. I agree with Cameron. It was a bad decision to release the man. It can't be undone, though.

    I agree with the people who have refused to jump to the USA's tune, too, yes, even if they were the ones who made the bad decision. This was, for good or ill, a Scottish decision. It was made.

    The USA is the schoolyard bully of the word right now. It's time it had a bloody nose. Maybe it will pull back a bit. Or perhaps it will declare that Scotland has weapons of mass destruction and try to invade.

    Can we interrogate the heads of the US banks and demand compensation for the finance crisis? It seems more damaging than the BP oil leak.