Talk:UN accuses US of wholesale rights violations in Iraq

Should the title have all the first letters capitalized? None of the other articles are like that. Neebs 13:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

POV?

Wouldn't this article be more neutral if a comparison were made to the former regime's human rights record? You know, mass graves and such? Just to give the reader a perspective on what direction Iraq is headed in, if it is in fact moving in a direction, or just treading water. Deltigar 15:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Sure, but it should be done in one of two contexts: add statments from John Pace to that effect, if they exist, and add rebuttals from U.S. officials. Otherwise, you've got to actually make some meaningful comment about just what the situation was before, which is nontrivial to make NPOV itself. You could also simply add a box saying "Wikipedia has an article about Human rights in Iraq"; thus foisting the whole debate over onto that articles talkpage. Nyarlathotep 18:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that information about the previous regeime is necessary. The main thing that would make this article more neutral is responses from the US government to the UN criticism, or if that can't be found, then any statements from the US government on the state of law and order in Iraq. - Borofkin 05:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

John Pace is with Amnesty International, nuff said.- --66.32.68.214 19:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

John Pace is not entirely correct here. What he says is true if you consider things from one point of view - namely, that Iraq is currently a sovereign state that's full functioning. But that is not exactly the case. While Iraq's political process is being run by the Iraqis (outside pressures not withstanding), it is also without a complete and functioning government. I think that election is Dec. 15. But aside from the technicalities of full-statehood versus transitional statehood, Pace is also wrong in another sense. The US is at war in Iraq. As such, the rules state that from then on they must abide by the Geneva Conventions. But beyond that, the US doesn't have to care a bit what other countries (or even organizations, like the UN, ha) think or want. That said, the US chose formally restore Iraqi sovereignty a year or so back. However, Pace is ultimately wrong because both Iraqi governments (transitional council and this elected assembly) have requested the US to stay. What that means is that, regardless of what this person (wrongly) says, the US is still operating at war. If that's the case, then of course habeus corpus is suspended. But that is another misleading link because habeus corpus is a right guaranteed to US CITIZENS not Iraqis. And if habeus corpus is also written in the International Criminal Court charter, well the US doesn't abide by the charter. So basically, John Pace is wrong on BOTH the US and the Iraqi side of things. Furthermore, the kinds of comments are hardly newsworthy and almost always bias. Think of it this way, John Pace works for a large organization. This story carries weight because it suggests that this large organization is acting in some meaningful way against the United States. It is not. In fact, John Pace's snide comments to the press about human rights abuses (notice he didn't say "violations of the Geneva Convention" which is the only multilateral UN charter applicable here) are simply jibes at the US (more particularly, at the US gov't and possibly its foreign policy). But what is disconcerting about this article is the fact that it is newsworthy in today's times. For a lawyer, John Pace has yet to present anything but hearsay. Objection...