Human rights in the United States

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article needs to be updated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (October 2016) This article may be in need of reorganization to comply with Wikipedia's layout guidelines. Please help by editing the article to make improvements to the overall structure. (October 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. (October 2016) This article may lend WP:BALANCE issues; the article should not resemble a database for every possible criticism of the U.S. human rights record found on Google; instead, it should rely on reliable sources, preferably academic ones) Please help improve it by rewriting it in a balanced fashion that contextualizes different points of view. (January 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this template message ) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

This article is part of a series on the
Politics of the United States
Federal government Constitution of the United States Law Taxation Policy
Legislature United States Congress House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson (R) Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R) Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D) Congressional districts (list ) Non-voting members Senate President Kamala Harris (D) President Pro Tempore Patty Murray (D) Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D) Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R)
Executive President of the United States Joe Biden (D) Vice President of the United States Kamala Harris (D) United States Attorney General Merrick Garland Cabinet Federal agencies Executive Office
Judiciary Supreme Court of the United States Chief Justice John Roberts Thomas Alito Sotomayor Kagan Gorsuch Kavanaugh Barrett Jackson Inferior Courts of the United States Courts of appeals District courts (list) Court of International Trade Multidistrict Litigation Judicial Panel Alien Terrorist Removal Court Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review Other tribunals
Elections National Elections Presidential elections Midterm elections Off-year elections Primary elections Presidential primary Elections by State and Territory Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming American Samoa Guam Northern Mariana Islands Puerto Rico U.S. Virgin Islands Elections in the District of Columbia (List of Elections)
Political parties Democratic Republican Third parties Libertarian Green List of political parties
Political ideologies Conservatism history Black Neo- Paleo- Social Traditionalist Liberalism Modern Progressivism Abolitionism Constitutionalism Environmentalism Feminism Libertarianism Monarchism Populism Protectionism Republicanism Socialism Anarchism Individualist anarchism Political culture Political polarization
Federalism State and Territorial government Governors Legislatures (list) Courts Local government District of Columbia Government District Council Mayor Superior Court
Foreign relations Department of State Secretary of State: Antony Blinken Diplomatic missions of / in the United States Nationality law Passports Visa requirements Visa policy United States and the United Nations United Nations Security Council P5 NATO G20 G7 Russia China India Japan Canada United Kingdom European Union Latin America Arab League
United States portal  Politics portal
v t e

In the

As the new Constitution took effect in practice, concerns about individual liberties and the concentration of power at the federal level, gave rise to the amendment of the Constitution through the adoption of the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution. However, this had little impact on judgements by the courts for the first 130 years after its ratification.^[21]

Courts and legislatures also began to vary in the interpretation of "Person", with some jurisdictions narrowing the meaning of "Person" to cover only people with property, only men, or only white men. For example, although women had been voting in some states, such as New Jersey, since the founding of the United States, and prior to that in the colonial era, other states denied them the vote. In 1756, Lydia Chapin Taft voted, casting a vote in the local town hall meeting in place of her deceased husband.^[22][23] In 1777, women lost the right to exercise their vote in New York; in 1780, women lost the right to exercise their vote in Massachusetts; and in 1784, women lost the right to exercise their vote in New Hampshire.^[24] From 1775 until 1807, the state constitution in New Jersey permitted all persons worth over fifty pounds (about $7,800 adjusted for inflation, with the election laws referring to the voters as "he or she") to vote; provided they had this property, free black men and single women regardless of race therefore had the vote until 1807, but not married women, who could have no independent claim to ownership of fifty pounds (anything they owned or earned belonged to their husbands by the

Fifty years later, in 1920, the Constitution was amended again, with the Nineteenth Amendment to definitively prohibit discrimination against women's suffrage.

In the 1970s, the Burger Court made a series of rulings clarifying that discrimination against women in the status of being Persons violated the Constitution and acknowledged that previous court rulings to the contrary had been Sui generis and an abuse of power. The most often cited of these is Reed v. Reed, which held that any discrimination against either sex in the rights associated with Person status must meet a strict scrutiny standard.^{[citation needed]}

The 1970s also saw the adoption of the Twenty-sixth Amendment, which prohibited discrimination on the basis of age, for Persons 18 years old and over, in voting. Other attempts to address the developmental distinction between children and adults in Person status and rights have been addressed mostly by the Supreme Court, with the Court recognizing in 2012, in Miller v. Alabama a political and biological principle that children are different from adults.^{[citation needed]}

In 1945, the members of the

However, today there is little worry in the United States about the effect that human rights might have on its domestic law. Over the past few decades, the United States government has often held itself up as a strong supporter of human rights in the international arena. Nonetheless, in the view of the government human rights are still an international rather than a domestic phenomenon – representing more of choice than obligation.[27]

Having today overcome many of the inequalities from more than half a dozen decades before, still the United States is in violation of the Declaration, in as much that "everyone has the right to leave any country" because the government may prevent the entry and exit of anyone from the United States for foreign policy, national security, or child support rearage reasons by revoking their passport.^[28] The United States is also in violation of the United Nations' human rights Convention on the Rights of the Child which requires both parents to have a relationship with the child. Conflict between the human rights of the child and those of a mother or father who wishes to leave the country without paying child support or doing the personal work of child care for his child can be considered to be a question of negative and positive rights.^{[citation needed]}

Legal framework

Domestic legal protection structure

According to Human Rights: The Essential Reference, "the American Declaration of Independence was the first civic document that met a modern definition of human rights."

Within the federal government, the debate about what may or may not be an emerging human right is held in two forums: the United States Congress, which may enumerate these; and the Supreme Court, which may articulate rights that the law does not spell out. Additionally, individual states, through court action or legislation, have often protected human rights not recognized at federal level. For example, Massachusetts was the first of several states to recognize same sex marriage.[31]

Effect of international treaties

In the context of human rights and treaties that recognize or create individual rights, U.S. constitutional law makes a distinction between self-executing and non-self-executing treaties. Non-self-executing treaties, which ascribe rights that under the constitution may be assigned by law, require legislative action to execute the contract (treaty) before it becomes a part of domestic law.^[32] There are also cases that explicitly require legislative approval according to the Constitution, such as cases that could commit the U.S. to declare war or appropriate funds.

Treaties regarding human rights, which create a duty to refrain from acting in a particular manner or confer specific rights, are generally held to be self-executing, requiring no further legislative action. In cases where legislative bodies refuse to recognize otherwise self-executing treaties by declaring them to be non-self-executing in an act of legislative non-recognition, constitutional scholars argue that such acts violate the separation of powers—in cases of controversy, the judiciary, not Congress, has the authority under Article III to apply treaty law to cases before the court. This is a key provision in cases where Congress declares a human rights treaty to be non-self-executing, for example, by contending it does not add anything to human rights under U.S. domestic law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is one such case, which, while ratified after more than two decades of inaction, was done so with reservations, understandings, and declarations.^[33]

Under the principle of pacta sunt servanda, a country may not invoke provisions of its domestic laws or constitution as justification for failure to comply with its international law obligations. Therefore, if a human rights treaty has been ratified by the U.S. but is not considered self-executing, or has not yet been implemented by legislation, it is nonetheless binding on the U.S. government as a matter of international law.^{[citation needed]}

Equality

Racial

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States ... are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"^[34] In addition, Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution 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 has enacted comprehensive legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race and national origin in the workplace in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA).^[35] 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.^[36] The 1991 provision created recourse for victims of such discrimination for punitive damages and full back pay.^[37] In addition to individual civil recourse, the United States possesses anti-discrimination government enforcement bodies, such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.^[37]

Beginning in 1965, the United States also began a program of affirmative action that not only obliges employers not to discriminate, but requires them to provide preferences for groups protected under the Civil Rights Act to increase their numbers where they are judged to be underrepresented.^[38] Such affirmative action programs are also applied in college admissions.^[38]

The United States also

Prior to the passage of the

Following the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama was sworn in as the first African-American president of the United States on January 20, 2009.^[44] In his Inaugural Address, President 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".^[44]

Sex

The Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the states and the federal government from denying any citizen the right to vote because of that citizen's sex.^[45] While this does not necessarily guarantee all women the right to vote, as suffrage qualifications are determined by individual states, it does mean that states' suffrage qualifications may not prevent women from voting due to their gender.^[45]

The 1964

The U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, known as

According to the report of HRW, The patchwork of healthcare coverage in the Trump administration caused the loss of insurance for many women and girls who are at risk of deadly diseases such as gynecological cancer.[49]

In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion, allowing states to criminalize the procedure. As of March 2023, 12 states have outlawed abortion after 6 weeks (before most women know they are pregnant), with several other state bans currently tied up in litigation. As of 2023, 1 in 3 American women live in states without abortion access. The decision received international condemnation.^[50]

The United States is the one of only six countries in the world that does not guarantee paid maternity leave to new mothers. A study of the 40 OECD countries ranked the United States the worst for paid maternity leave.^[51]

The United States has the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world, with a rate of nearly 33 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. The rate rose nearly 40% in 2021 and has more than quadrupled since the 1990s.^[52]

The United States has the highest female incarceration rate in the world, housing nearly one-third of the world's female prisoners.^[53] It is alleged that as many as 80% of female U.S. inmates have experienced physical and/or sexual abuse.^[54]

Disability

The United States has adopted antidiscrimination legislation for people with disabilities, the

The United States federal government voted in the United Nations General Assembly in favor of all LGBTQ+ protection resolutions, including A/RES/57/214,^[62] A/RES/59/197,^[63] abstained A/RES/61/173,^[64] A/RES/63/182,^[65] A/RES/65/208,^[66] A/RES/67/168,^[67] and in favor of A/RES/69/182.^[68] The United States federal government also voted in favor of the United Nations Human Rights Council A/HRC/RES/17/19.^[69] The United States federal government signed the United Nations 2006^[70] and 2008 Joint Statements. The United States federal government voted in the United Nations Security Council in favor of SC/12399.^[71]

Intersex

According to the Human Rights Commission of the City and County of San Francisco, as of 2005, Intersex people in the United States have gaps in protections for physical integrity and bodily autonomy, particularly in protection from non-consensual cosmetic medical interventions and violence, and protection from discrimination.^[72][73] Actions by intersex civil society organizations aim to eliminate harmful practices, promote social acceptance, and equality. In recent years, intersex activists have also secured some forms of legal recognition.^[74]

Privacy

Privacy is not explicitly stated in the United States Constitution. In the

Freedom of expression

The United States is a constitutional republic based on founding documents that restrict the power of government and preserve the liberty of the people. The freedom of expression (including speech, media, and public assembly) is an important right and is given special protection, as declared by the First Amendment of the constitution. Protections on freedom of speech within the United States are considered to be broad, even when compared with other liberal democracies. For example, in the United States, hate speech is constitutionally protected. According to Supreme Court precedent, the federal and lower governments may not apply prior restraint to expression, with certain exceptions, such as national security and obscenity. Legal limits on expression include:

• Solicitation, fraud, specific threats of violence, or disclosure of classified information.
• Civil offenses involving defamation, fraud, or workplace harassment.
• Copyright violations.
• broadcast media
  .
• Certain crimes involving obscenity.
• Ordinances requiring mass demonstrations on public property to register in advance. The government may not, however, deny registration to demonstrators on the basis of content.
• The use of free speech zones and protest free zones.
• Military censorship of
  sensitive information ineligible for release
  .

Some laws remain controversial due to concerns that they infringe on freedom of expression. These include the Digital Millennium Copyright Act^[78] and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.^[79]

In two high-profile cases, grand juries have decided that

Right to peaceably assemble

Protesters have been arrested for protesting outside of designated "free speech zones".^[80] At the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City, over 1,700 protesters were arrested.^[81]

On July 24, 2020, the United Nations human rights office urged U.S. security forces to limit their use of force against peaceful protesters and journalists, as clashes between federal agents and demonstrators continued in Portland, Oregon.^[82]

Freedom of movement

As per § 707(b) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1979,^[83] United States passports are required to enter and exit the country, and as per the Passport Act of 1926 and Haig v. Agee, the Presidential administration may deny or revoke passports for foreign policy or national security reasons at any time. Perhaps the most notable example of enforcement of this ability was the 1948 denial of a passport to U.S. Representative Leo Isacson, who sought to go to Paris to attend a conference as an observer for the American Council for a Democratic Greece, a Communist front organization, because of the group's role in opposing the Greek government in the Greek Civil War.^[84][85]

The United States prevents U.S. citizens to travel to Cuba, citing national security reasons, as part of an embargo against Cuba that has been condemned as an illegal act by the United Nations General Assembly.^[86] 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.^[87]

On June 30, 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of ten people who are either U.S. citizens or legal residents of the U.S., challenging the constitutionality of the government's "no-fly" list. The plaintiffs have not been told why they are on the list. Five of the plaintiffs have been stranded abroad. It is estimated that the "no-fly" list contained about 8,000 names at the time of the lawsuit.^[88]

Right to vote

The right to vote, also known as the right to suffrage, is implicitly guaranteed through a combination of constitutional (especially the Fifteenth, Nineteenth and Twenty-fourth amendments), statutory and judicial guarantees. Unlike the United States Constitution, the right to vote is affirmatively guaranteed in 49 state constitutions, while the Arizona state constitution negatively affirms the right to vote. However, voting rights are impacted by the variety of state laws regarding voting and voter registration.

Freedom of association

Freedom of association is the right of individuals to come together in groups for political action or to pursue common interests.

Between 1956 and 1971, the

In 2008, the Maryland State Police admitted that they had added the names of Iraq War protesters and death penalty opponents to a terrorist database. They also admitted that other "protest groups" were added to the terrorist database, but did not specify which groups. It was also discovered that undercover troopers used aliases to infiltrate organizational meetings, rallies and group e-mail lists. Police admitted there was "no evidence whatsoever of any involvement in violent crime" by those classified as terrorists.[90]

Right of revolution

The right of revolution is the right or duty of the people of a nation to overthrow a government that acts against their common interests, and is a traditional assumption in American political thought.

As of 2006[update], U.S. workers worked longer hours on average than any other industrialized country, having surpassed Japan.^[101] Info published in 2007 showed U.S. workers rank high in terms of production.^[102]

As of 2008^[update], the United States'

In 2014, the United States received a poor grade of "4" on the ITUC's Global Rights Index, which ranks the worst places in the world for workers' rights, with "1" being the best and "5" the worst.^[104]

In 2014, the United States was considered a "medium risk" country for

In 2015, the United States and Papua New Guinea were reported to be the only countries in the world that did not guarantee paid maternal leave by law.^[106]

Reports by the

Unlike most other industrialized nations, the United States does not offer most of its citizens subsidized health care. The United States Medicaid program provides subsidized coverage to some categories of individuals and families with low incomes and resources, including children, pregnant women, and very low-income people with disabilities (higher-earning people with disabilities do not qualify for Medicaid, although they do qualify for Medicare). However, according to Medicaid's own documents, "the Medicaid program does not provide health care services, even for very poor people, unless they are in one of the designated eligibility groups."^[112]

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 Medicare. Every person with a permanent disability, both young and old, is inherently entitled to Medicare health benefits — a fact not all disabled US citizens are aware of. However, just like every other Medicare recipient, a disabled person finds that his or her Medicare benefits only cover up to 80% of what the insurer considers reasonable charges in the U.S. medical system, and that the other 20% plus the difference in the reasonable amount and the actual charge must be paid by other means (typically supplemental, privately held insurance plans, or cash out of the person's own pocket). Therefore, even the Medicare program is not truly national health insurance or universal health care the way most of the rest of the industrialized world understands it.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986, an unfunded mandate, mandates that no person may ever be denied emergency services regardless of ability to pay, citizenship, or immigration status.^[113] The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act has been criticized by the American College of Emergency Physicians as an unfunded mandate.^[114][115]

46.6 million residents, or 15.9 percent, were without health insurance coverage in 2005.^[116] This number includes about 10 million non-citizens, millions more who are eligible for Medicaid but never applied, and 18 million with annual household incomes above $50,000.^[117] According to a study led by the Johns Hopkins Children's Center, uninsured children who are hospitalized are 60% more likely to die than children who are covered by health insurance.^[118]

Justice system

The

The vast majority of executions are carried out by state governments,[125] largely as a result of the federal political structure of the United States, in which most crimes are prosecuted by state governments rather than the federal government.^[126] Capital punishment is heavily concentrated among several states,^[127] with Texas overwhelmingly leading in number of executions at 569 between 1976 and 2020, followed by Virginia with 113 executions, and Oklahoma with 112.^[122] The disparity is particularly stark when broken down by county: since 1976, only 2% of counties have been responsible for more than half of all executions.^[128] As of January 25, 2008, the death penalty has been abolished in the District of Columbia and fourteen states, mainly in the Northeast and Midwest.^[129]

The death penalty has a complex legal history. While modern critics have challenged capital punishment on grounds that it violates the

Capital punishment within the United States is controversial. Death penalty opponents consider it "inhumane",[137] criticize it for its irreversibility,^[138] and assert that it is ineffective as a deterrent against crime,^[139] pointing to several studies which show it has little deterring effect on crime^[140] (though this point is controversial as studies have conflicted in their conclusions on the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent^[141]). Human rights organizations have been particularly critical of it, with Amnesty International, for example, stating that "the death penalty is the ultimate, irreversible denial of human rights."^[138] Notably, the European Union, in accordance with its official policy of attempting to achieve global abolition of the death penalty, has been vocal in its criticism of the death penalty in the US and has submitted amicus curiae briefs in a number of important US court cases related to capital punishment.^[142] The American Bar Association also sponsors a project aimed at abolishing the death penalty in the United States,^[143] criticizing the US's execution of minors and the mentally disabled and arguing that the US fails to adequately protect the rights of the innocent.^[144]

Some opponents criticize the over-representation of black people on death row as evidence of the unequal racial application of the death penalty. In McCleskey v. Kemp, for example, it was alleged the capital sentencing process was administered in a racially discriminatory manner in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This over-representation is not limited to capital offenses—in 1992, at a time when black people accounted for 12% of the US population, about 34% of prison inmates were from this group.^[145] Furthermore, in 2003 Amnesty International reported those who kill whites are more likely to be executed than those who kill blacks, citing that of the 845 people executed since 1977 eighty 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.^[146]

Solitary confinement

The

The NGO

The United States also has a high rate of youth imprisonment, with many held in the same prisons as adults. According to The National Council on Crime and Delinquency, since 1990 the incarceration of youth in adult jails has increased 208%.^[179] They found that some juveniles had been incarcerated awaiting trial for a long time - up to two years, subjected to the same treatment as adult inmates, and were at greater risk of assault, abuse, or death.

The US also has a large number of

Tolerance of

Police brutality

In a 1999 report, Amnesty International said it had "documented patterns of ill-treatment across the U.S., including police beatings, unjustified shootings and the use of dangerous restraint techniques."^[183] 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.^[184] 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.^[185] 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.^[186] From 1999 to 2005, 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.^[187]

On June 2, 2020, George Floyd's official post-mortem report declared the cause of death as asphyxia (lack of oxygen) due to a compression on his neck and back. It also found that the death was a homicide, a statement from the family's legal team said.^[188] According to a 2021 article published in The Lancet, more than 30,000 people have died by police violence in the United States from 1980 to 2018.^[189] In June 2020, a report from the University of Chicago Law School stated that law enforcement policies in the police departments of 20 largest cities in the United States failed to meet basic standards under international human rights guidelines. According to the report, law enforcement forces are authorized to commit ‘state-sanctioned violence’ without significant reform.^[190]

The use of

The practice of taking an arrested person on a perp walk, often handcuffed, through a public place at some point after the arrest, creating an opportunity for the media to take photographs and video of the event has raised civil and human rights concerns.^[195]

Racial discrimination

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Human Rights Watch have argued that there exists a "trial penalty"—a penalty for electing to go to trial that arises from the discrepancy between the punishment a defendant would receive by waiving the right to trial and accepting a plea bargain compared to the punishment they might receive at trial—which they argue abridges the right to trial guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.^[214][215]

There has also been criticism over

According to the Canadian historian Michael Ignatieff, both during and after the Cold War, the US emphasized human rights more than other nations emphasized it as a part of its foreign policy, awarded foreign aid to facilitate progress on human rights, and annually assessed the human rights records of other national governments.^[26]

The US has also faced criticism over its human rights foreign policy. For example, numerous academics and journalists, among them

See also International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - United States

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

• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (ratified with 5 reservations, 5 understandings, and 4 declarations.)^[234]
• Optional protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict
• International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
• Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
• Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees^[235]
• Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography^[236]

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights^[237]

International Bill of Rights

See also International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - United States

The

The US's ratification of the

The United States has not ratified the

The U.S. 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.[245] Since the passage of the statute, the U.S. has actively encouraged nations around the world to sign "bilateral immunity agreements" prohibiting the surrender of U.S. personnel before the ICC^[246] and actively attempted to undermine the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.^[247] The U.S. Congress also passed a law, American Service-Members' Protection Act (ASPA), authorizing the use of military force to free any U.S. personnel that are brought before the court rather than its own court system.^[248][249] Human Rights Watch criticized the United States for removing itself from the Statute.^[250]

Judge

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.^[250]

The United States' objections to the Rome Statute have revolved around the issues of jurisdiction and process. A U.S. ambassador for War Crimes Issues to the UN Security Council said to the U.S. 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 U.S. 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."^[245]

Other 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.^[251]

The U.S. has not ratified the following international human rights treaties:^[235]

• First Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
• Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty
• Optional Protocol to CEDAW
• Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture
• Convention relating to the Status of Refugees
  (1951)
• Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (1954)
• Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness
  (1961)
• International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families

The US has signed but not ratified the following treaties:

• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
  (CEDAW)
• Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)
• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
• Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Non-binding documents voted against:

• Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in September 2007.^[252]

Inter-American human rights system

The US is a signatory to the 1948 American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and has signed but not ratified the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights. It is a member of Inter-American Convention on the Granting of Political Rights to Women (1948). It does not accept the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Costa Rica-based Inter-American Court of Human Rights.^[253][254]

The US has not ratified any of the other regional human rights treaties of the Organization of American States,^[235] which include:

• Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty (1990)
• Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
• Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (1985)
• Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence Against Women
  (1994)
• Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (1994)
• Inter-American Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities

Coverage of violations in the media

Studies have found that The New York Times coverage of worldwide human rights violations predominately focuses on 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.^[255][256] Amnesty International's Secretary General Irene Khan 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."^[257]

Inhumane treatment and torture of foreign prisoners

International and U.S. law prohibits

Abuse of prisoners is considered a crime in the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice. According to a January 2006 Human Rights First report, there were 45 suspected or confirmed homicides while in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan; "Certainly 8, as many as 12, people were tortured to death."^[263]

Abu Ghraib prison abuse

In 2004, photos showing humiliation and abuse of prisoners were leaked from Abu Ghraib prison, causing a political and media scandal in the US. Forced humiliation of the detainees included, but was not limited to: forced nudity; rape; human piling of nude detainees; masturbation; eating food out of toilets; crawling on hands and knees while American soldiers sat on their backs, sometimes requiring them to bark like dogs; and hooking up electrical wires to fingers, toes, and penises.^[264] Bertrand Ramcharan, the 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".^[265]

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 in which a phosphoric light was broken and the chemicals poured on a detainee, repeated beatings, and threats of death.^[264] Six military personnel were charged with prisoner abuse in the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal. The harshest sentence was handed out to Charles Graner, who received a 10-year sentence to be served in a military prison and a demotion to private; the other offenders received lesser sentences.^[266]

In their report The Road to Abu Ghraib, Human Rights Watch states:^[267]

The [Bush] administration effectively sought to re-write the Geneva Conventions of 1949 to eviscerate many of their most important protections. These include the rights of all detainees in an armed conflict to be free from humiliating and degrading treatment, as well as from torture and other forms of coercive interrogation...[M]ethods included holding detainees in painful stress positions, depriving them of sleep and light for prolonged periods, exposing them to extremes of heat, cold, noise and light, hooding, and depriving them of all clothing...Concern for the basic rights of persons taken into custody in Afghanistan and Iraq did not factor into the Bush administration's agenda. The administration largely dismissed expressions of concern for their treatment, from both within the government and without.

Enhanced interrogation and waterboarding

On February 6, 2008, the CIA director General

In November 2005,

al Qaeda

.

Convention Against Torture should be prosecuted under the principle of universal jurisdiction.^[271]

Bent Sørensen, Senior Medical Consultant to the

Committee Against Torture

has said:

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.[272]

Both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have condemned waterboarding as a form of torture, the latter group demanding that former president George W. Bush be prosecuted.^[273][274]

Lt. Gen.

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.^[275]

The Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal and United Nations War Crimes Commission both defined waterboarding as ill-treatment and torture in the aftermath of World War II.^[276][277]

The CIA director testified that waterboarding has not been used since 2003.^[278]

In April 2009, the

Obama administration released four memos in which government lawyers from the Bush administration approved tough interrogation methods used against 28 terror suspects. The rough tactics range from waterboarding (simulated drowning) to keeping suspects naked and denying them solid food.^[279]

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

insects), sleep-deprivation, prolonged shackling, and threats to a detainee's family. One of the memos also authorized a method for combining multiple techniques.^[279][281]

Details from the memos also included the number of times that techniques such as waterboarding were used. A footnote said that one detainee was waterboarded 83 times in one month, while another was waterboarded 183 times in a month.^{[282] [283]} This may have gone beyond even what was allowed by the CIA's own directives, which limit waterboarding to 12 times a day.^[283] The Fox News website carried reports from an unnamed U.S. official who claimed that these were the number of pourings, not the number of sessions.^[284]

Nuremberg Trials.^[286]

Guantánamo Bay

See also: Guantanamo Bay Naval Base

The United States maintains a detention center at its military base at

enemy combatants of the war on terror are held. The detention center has been the source of various controversies regarding the legality of the center and the treatment of detainees.^[287][288] Amnesty International has called the situation "a human rights scandal" in a series of reports.^[289] 775 detainees have been brought to Guantánamo. Of these, many have been released without charge. As of December 2023^[update], 30 detainees remain at Guantanamo Bay.^[290] The United States assumed territorial control over Guantánamo Bay under the 1903 Cuban–American Treaty of Relations, which granted the United States a perpetual lease of the area.^[291] United States, by virtue of its complete jurisdiction and control, maintains "de facto" sovereignty over this territory, while Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory. The current government of Cuba regards the U.S. presence in Guantánamo as illegal and insists the Cuban-American Treaty was obtained by threat of force in violation of international law.^[292]

A delegation of

Convention Against Torture.^[293]

In 2005, Amnesty International 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 September 11, 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 U.S.'s detentions and interrogations in the "war on terror".^[294]

Amnesty International also condemned the Guantánamo facility as "... the gulag 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 International Committee of the Red Cross. The ICRC, in response to the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan, published a paper on the subject.^[295] HRW cites two sergeants and a captain accusing U.S. troops of torturing prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan.^[296]

However, former

Republican governor Mike Huckabee, for example, has stated that the conditions in Guantánamo are better than most U.S. prisons.^[297]

The U.S. government 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

U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on June 29, 2006, that they were entitled to the minimal protections listed under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.^[299] Following this, on July 7, 2006, the Department of Defense issued an internal memo stating that prisoners would in the future be entitled to protection under Common Article 3.^{[300][301][302][303]}

Extraordinary rendition

See also:

Extraordinary rendition by the United States

In a process known as

State Department, and are known to torture suspects."^[305]

Notable cases

In November 2001,

Konduz, Afghanistan, amongst hundreds of surrendering Taliban 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 Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, but when it was discovered that he was a U.S. citizen, he was transferred to naval brig in Norfolk, Virginia and then he was transferred brig in Charleston, South Carolina. The Bush Administration identified him as an unlawful combatant and denied him access to an attorney or the court system, despite his Fifth Amendment right to due process. In 2002 Hamdi's father filed a habeas corpus 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 Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

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,

extradited to Afghanistan. While held in Afghanistan, El-Masri claims he was sodomized, beaten, and repeatedly interrogated about alleged terrorist ties.^[306] After being in custody for five months, Condoleezza Rice learned of his detention and ordered his release. El-Masri was released at night on a desolate road in Albania, without apology or funds to return home. He was intercepted by Albanian guards, who believed he was a terrorist due to his haggard and unkept appearance. He was subsequently reunited with his wife who had returned to her family in Lebanon with their children because she thought her husband had abandoned them. Using isotope analysis, scientists at the Bavarian archive for geology in Munich analyzed his hair and verified that he was malnourished during his disappearance.^[307]

In 2007, U.S. President Bush signed an

CIA's interrogation program.^[308]

According to the Human Rights Watch report (September 2012) the United States government during the U.S. President Bush republican administration "waterboarding" tortured opponents of Muammar Gaddafi during interrogations, then transferred them to mistreatment in Libya.^[309][310] President Barack Obama has denied water torture.^[311]

Unethical human experimentation

See also: Unethical human experimentation in the United States and List of medical ethics cases

Well-known cases include:

• Albert Kligman's dermatology experiments
• Henrietta Lacks
• Medical Experimentation on Black Americans
• Milgram experiment
• Monster Study
• Plutonium injections
• Project MKULTRA
• Project MKOFTEN
• Stanford prison experiment
• Tuskegee syphilis experiment

Further assessments

The Polity data series generated by the Political Instability Task Force, a U.S. government-funded project, rating regime and authority characteristics, covering the years 1800–2018, has given the US 10 points out of 10 for the years 1871–1966 and 1974–2015. The US score declined to 8 in 2016, 2017, and 2018.^[312]

According to the

Democracy Index and received a score of 8.24 out of 10.00 with respect to civil liberties.^[313] This is the first time the United States has been downgraded from a "Full Democracy" to a "Flawed Democracy" since The Economist began publishing the Democracy Index report.^[314][315]

According to the annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index published by Reporters Without Borders, due to journalist harassment and public distrust in mainstream media, the U.S ranked 44 out of 197 countries for press freedom.^[316]

According to the annual Corruption Perceptions Index, which was published by Transparency International, the United States ranked 25th out of 180 countries with of 67/100 for political transparency.^[317]

According to the annual Privacy International index of 2007, the United States was ranked an "endemic surveillance society", scoring only 1.5 out of 5 privacy points.^[318]

According to the annual Democracy Matrix, which is published by the University of Würzburg, the US was a "working democracy" in 2019, which is the highest category in that index, although it is the third-lowest ranking country in that category (36th overall).^[319]

According to the Gallup International Millennium Survey, the United States ranked 23rd in citizens' perception of human rights observance when its citizens were asked, "In general, do you think that human rights are being fully respected, partially respected or are they not being respected at all in your country?"^[320]

Other issues

In the aftermath of the devastation caused by

enhanced interrogation techniques and domestic poverty gaps.^{[329][330][331][332]}

On 28 October 2020,

human rights violations related to protests during and after the 3 November United States elections.^{[333][failed verification}

]

On 9 November 2020, during the 3.5 -hour session at the UN's main human rights body, the United States came under scrutiny for the first time in five years, regarding the detention of migrant children and the killings of unarmed Black people during Donald Trump’s tenure. The US critics, including Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Russia and China, raised concerns on the United States human rights records that followed up on an August report about past rights records of the US.^[334]

Deaths of migrant people in US custody at the border are one of the important issues that raised concerns about human rights in the United States.^[335] The Kino Border Initiative tracked 78 complaints from migrants between 2010 and 2022, of which it says 95 percent did not lead to any investigation or proper disciplinary action.^[336]

See also

Criticism of the US human rights record

• People's Republic of China
• United States and State terrorism
• United States and state-sponsored terrorism

US Human rights abuses

Main category: Human rights abuses in the United States

• Unethical human experimentation in the United States
• Human rights violations by the CIA

Organizations involved in US human rights

• Pennsylvania Abolition Society
• National Organization for Women
• US Human Rights Network

People involved in US human rights

• Susan B. Anthony
• Anthony Benezet
• Mary Bonauto
• Louis Henkin
• Gay McDougall
• Gloria Steinem

Notable comments on US human rights

• Four Freedoms, a 1941 speech made by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt
• Second Bill of Rights, a list of rights proposed by Roosevelt during his State of the Union Address on January 11, 1944.

References