Communications and Media

On the few times when the US regime has authorized a human rights agreement, it has done so in a manner designed to prevent the agreement from having some domestic consequence. Washington fakes to unite with the international human rights organization, but it does not allow this system to make better the rights of US people.

The way of dealing with the issue shows an attitude to international human rights regulation of fear and arrogance--fear that global standards may constrain the unregulated latitude of the international superpower, and conceit in the confidence that the U. S., with its proud and long history of domestic constitutional rights protections, has nothing left to study on this subject matter from the other part of the world. As the other regimes increasingly perceive through this limited view of global human rights act, it weakens Americas influence as a principled protector of human constitutional rights in the region and weakens Americas moral stature and influence.

One additional technique that US citizens may have brought into play their accord rights would include pleasing one of the United Nations assessment committees set up by several human rights agreements. For instance, the ICCPR makes the Human Rights commission--a group of self-governing experts nominated by the ruling party to the convention with the accountability, among others, of investigating grievances brought by citizens who think their agreement rights have been dishonored. However, protesters can be heard only in opposition to governments that have approved the Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, which the US government has not done (Roth, 2000).

Floyd, C. ( 2009, December 18). Dred Scott Redux Obama and the Supremes Stand Up for Slavery. Retrieved June 9, 2010, from www.chris-floyd.com  HYPERLINK httpwww.chris-floyd.comcomponentcontentarticle1-latest-news1887-dred-scott-redux-obama-and-the-supremes-stand-up-for-slavery.html httpwww.chris-floyd.comcomponentcontentarticle1-latest-news1887-dred-scott-redux-obama-and-the-supremes-stand-up-for-slavery.html
August supporters of the charter did not have to exert themselves the least to eviscerate not merely 220 years of Constitutional jurisprudence but also centuries of agonizing effort to lift civilization a few inches out of the blood-soaked mire that is our common human legacy. They just had to write a single sentence.

 After hearing passionate arguments from the Obama Administration, the Supreme Court acquiesced to the presidents fervent request and, in a one-line ruling, let stand a lower court decision that declared torture an ordinary, expected consequence of military detention, while introducing a shocking new precedent for all future courts to follow anyone who is arbitrarily declared a suspected enemy combatant by the president or his designated minions is no longer a person.

This extraordinary ruling occasioned none of those deep-delving process stories that glut the pages of the New York Times, where the minutiae of policy-making or political gaming is examined in highly-spun, microscopic detail doled out by self-interested insiders. Obviously, giving government the power to render whole classes of people unpersons was not an interesting subject for our media arbiters (Floyd, 2009).

Politico, D. ( 2006, Jul 03). America Evil Empire Or Benevolent Ruler Retrieved June 9, 2010, from blogcritics.org  HYPERLINK httpblogcritics.orgpoliticsarticleamerica-evil-empire-or-benevolent-ruler httpblogcritics.orgpoliticsarticleamerica-evil-empire-or-benevolent-ruler
More than two-thirds who offered an opinion said America is essentially an imperial power seeking world domination.

There are two messages that Britons are trying to send here the explicit message  Americas agenda conflicts dangerously with that of the international community and the implicit message  the international community, minus America, seeks to promote the greater good while America seeks to obstruct it.

For Britons, and much of the European and international communities, Americas meteoric rise to hegemony - or domination - on the world stage is an intolerable affront to their own hegemonic aspirations, as evidenced by this and similar polls. A brief look at Americas rise to power, and its subsequent use of that power, demonstrates the utter asininity of these views.

On the world stage, the unmatched power of either nation gave rise to a bipolar world  where two dominant powers exist. The rest of the international communities were forced to choose sides in the conflict in order to protect their own interests against the potentially aggressive policies of one or both powers.

The disintegration of the USSR  which nobody expected until after it happened, despite what many academicians would have you believe  propelled the US to global dominance, at which point the unipolar world that exists today was born.

America has now become an unrivalled empire among the nations, exercising dominion over them. How it behaves and what it represents has fundamentally changed. It used to represent freedom. Now it represents power. The inordinate power of the United States disturbs people on the American left and excites people on the American right. Liberals are uncomfortable with the notion of an American empire because they are uneasy with the fact that America has so much power, especially military power.

There is a deeper and more complex reality going on. Whatever qualms people may have about it, America has become an empire, and there is no turning back. As Heraclitus taught us, one can never enter the same river twice. The transition from republic to empire is irreversible, like the metamorphosis from caterpillar to butterfly. Once power is attained, it is not surrendered. It is only exercised. The central question before America, therefore, is what it should do with all the power it has. How should it assert its authority and for what end

This means that America should acknowledge, even celebrate, its transition to empire and acquisition of global mastery. What began as a motley band of colonies 225 years ago is now not only the strongest nation in the world but the strongest nation in the history of the world. Americans should be justly proud of this achievement. It has been attained with enormous effort and at great cost.

The world, too, should modulate its antipathy against America with the consideration that America has become so powerful in part because it has been so benign. This might be a little hard to take if one has experienced the boot of American strength, but consider the three other national attempts at empire in the last century the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Imperial Japan (Garrison, 2004).

A great deal about our present world is incomparable perforations in the ozone cover, the commercial rights of life forms, undignified poverty on a substantial scale, and, further hopefully, the increased concern of concepts of global nationality and worldwide human rights. Less observable but similarly unprecedented is the international omnipresence and unmatched fatality of the U.S. military, and the aspiration with which it is being organized around the globe.  These military bases spine with a stock of weapons whose value is calculated to total to trillions and whose carnage power could destroy every life on earth numerous times over.  Their existence is meant to indicate, and at times show that the US is capable and ready to attempt to be in charge of dealings in other areas militarily. The establishment of a fresh government in Washington, and the likelihood that world economic problems will result to new challenges and tension, provides an imperative occasion to evaluate the international structures of American supremacy.

Officially, more than 190,000 troops and 115,000 inhabitant workers are massed in the 909 military amenities in 46 territories and regions. There, the United States military possess or rents 795,000 acres of land, and 26,000 buildings and structures valued at 146 billion.  These official numbers are quite misleading as to the scale of US overseas military basing, however, excluding as they do the massive buildup of new bases and troop presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as secret or unacknowledged facilities in Israel, Kuwait, the Philippines and many other places.  2 billion in military construction money has been expended in only three years of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.  Just one facility in Iraq, Balad Air Base, houses 30,000 troops and 10,000 contractors, and extends across 16 square miles with an additional 12 square mile security perimeter. (Lutz, 2009).