Jump to content

Talk:Human rights in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.188.25.170 (talk) at 15:39, 5 July 2011 (→‎Japenese internment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Enhanced interrogation

I notice that a lot of times the words 'enhanced interrogation' appear in quotes for no apparent reason. I think this comes across as a bit POV. Putting the words in quotes seem to suggest that the term is a euphemism for torture, which is a matter of opinion. In keeping with the Wikipedia page for Enhanced Interrogation, which only uses the words in quotes when it is specifically being quoted, I'm erasing the quotes.

I've also deleted the paragraph that only reads: "'We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history,' President Barack Obama said." Quite frankly, it lacks context, and contributes nothing to the article, and doesn't even specifically mention torture or enhanced interrogation.

Quite frankly, there's a lot of problems with the article. But I don't feel like inciting an edit war this close to finals. Joker1189 (talk)

This vs. others

Most of the articles about Human Rights in... are about human rights violence, but not this, that is about how USA describe human rights. why not a change? USA have broken MANY human rights, for example about racism, bad health care, discrimination of women, prisons, death penalty, war crimes and torture. It have been better if all articles about human rights by country had been about the same thing, 62.16.168.251 (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think same thing why this article not say anything about that nearly only say "good". While in another article with another country especially in Asia and South-American even single very little trouble with some one and something or the fact it even not real they say so loud about broken human rights. Well I think this article pro-USA and nearly complete POV anyway just go to wikileaks we will see many "good source" say complete reverse with this article say.Tnt1984 (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rape

The US--and it is not alone--does not have a very good track record regarding sexual assault, victim blaming, availability of rape kits, &c. Anyone knowledgeable enough with sources to start this section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.117.170.50 (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Manning

Perhaps time to include details of the case of Bradley Manning - problematic detention conditions and he could now face the death penalty according to the Guardian. Amnesty International has taken up the case. Pexise (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights OF the United States?

I think it looks a bit odd to read about the war of terrorism and the Abu Ghraib prison torture when the article is about human rights IN the United States - after all, these incidents did not happen in the United States! What about renaming the article to human rights OF the United States? That would allow us to include the human rights track reocrd of the United States that occurred in other countries or in relation to non-Americans.Craddocktm (talk) 00:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese internment

No mention of Japanese interment? I would especially like to see the legal justification that was used for denying them their rights under american law. 68.188.25.170 (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]