Guest: Attorney, Jamil Dakwar, Director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Human Rights Program (HRP) – dedicated to holding the U.S. government accountable to its international human rights obligations and commitments. He leads a team of lawyers and advocates who use a human rights framework to complement existing ACLU legal and legislative advocacy, primarily in the areas of counter-terrorism, racial justice, immigrants’ rights, women’s rights, and criminal and juvenile justice. Before joining the ACLU in 2004, Atty. Dakwar worked at Human Rights Watch, and outside the United States as senior attorney with Adalah: the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel. Currently he is an adjunct professor at Hunter College and John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City.

Discussion on the International Bill of Rights – (3 parts) including: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) adopted in 1948 after WWII, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social & Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is a “multilateral treaty” adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1966, and put in force in March 1976. Yet, the Trump State Department is weakening the rapport with both the international community, while exacerbating the international norms. Subscribe to The Legal Edition channel on YouTube to see all programs, receive Alerts when new programs are released, and view the International Bill of Human Rights, with Jamil Dakwar on YouTube: https://youtu.be/i0USf6cgo_o

#HumanRights  #CivilRights #InternationalBillofRights #ACLU

hello and welcome to the legal edition i'm your host attorney mary kay elloian a show topic today the international bill of human rights politics and priorities where does america stand my guest is attorney jamil d'aqua he is the director of the american civil liberties union's human rights program he leads a team of lawyers in counterterrorism racial justice immigrants rights women's rights and criminal and juvenile justice let's welcome attorney jameel d'aqua welcome attorney aqua thank you for having me on now could you please explain for the audience what is the international bill of human rights absolutely so international human rights uh law which is a big body of international laws that were essentially put together adopted by uh countries all over the world since uh 1948 or and shortly after world war ii and when we say international bill of rights international human rights bill of rights it really refers to a number of international treaties that were adopted since 1948 that had to do with human rights particularly the international covenant on civil and political rights this is the main and the primary international treaty or the convention that was signed and ratified by over i think now 165 66 countries all over the world including the united states that specifically addresses civil and political rights you know from freedom of speech to freedom from torture to equality to gender equality political participation freedom of religion all those issues that are really in the center of of the civil and political uh participation and enjoyment of human rights in that level and then the second international treaty that was also adopted um around the same time in the in the late 60s and went into force in the 70s is the international covenant on economic social and cultural rights uh those two covenants uh that were adopted again in 1966 went into force in the 70s and then countries ratified them the united states was very late in ratifying those two human rights treaties we ratified the iccpr the covenant on civil political rights only in 1992 and the international covenant on civil uh on economic social culture rights has was signed by president carter but has never been ratified by the united states so we're we're talking about um a gap a serious gap in terms of our international law obligations in this area so these two covenants together uh in addition to other treaties that were adopted again since 1948 one on against torture one on the rights of the child one on the rights of women or or uh eliminating discrimination against women one uh most recently on the rights of people with disabilities there's another one on migrant rights and one against forced disappearances uh all of those treaties all these unconventions really form the international bill of rights okay and what has been happening lately i know there's been some activity with the state department can you explain that the trump administration since it took office in 2017 made it very clear that they are not going to abide and follow international law and will not be cooperating with international human rights bodies in fact they did not show up for a human right the first human rights hearing that happened in march of 2017 before the inter-american commission on human rights which is the the primary regional human rights tribunal or body that covers human rights in the whole region in the western hemisphere including in in the united states north america south america central america and it made it very clear that it's going to undermine the international system that has was created since 1948 since the the uh the united states helped um adopt the universal declaration of human rights and the subsequent treaties and conventions and really a better protections for human rights better understanding of of people's rights regardless of borders regardless of citizenship regardless of the people's backgrounds so that is what's the real intended purpose of the of the trump administration from day one and it was reflected in sometimes defunding international human rights organizations something that was reflected in not cooperating with international human rights experts for example they did not allow you and human rights expert to visit the united states i just want to interject here has this ever happened before not in that scale uh not in that way and very uh strong opposition to internationally and setting really a dangerous example for the international community for us particularly for governments that that uh welcome the united states of being uh not compliant with international law because as you know uh there's a lot of uh countries that have been considered for years as violators of human rights and the united states while never really had a perfect record not even close to that has tried to use international human rights in order to engage some other governments uh you know holding trying to particularly those that are not in line with the united states foreign policies or united states foreign interests uh economic interests in particular but at but this recent development with the trump administration taking really a very uh implicit and and explicit uh policy that is undermining and targeting uh the international human rights system as a whole is unprecedented and so there was a uh it was a lot of pushback from from the united nations human rights bodies from another other countries um the trump administration as you know went even further it even attacked and sanctioned the international criminal court which is the court that was established in 2002 to hold perpetrators uh who were responsible for the worst uh atrocities in the world namely war crimes crimes against humanity genocide and the united states uh was doing that in order to protect its own uh uh people or particularly people who were involved in the united states armed services in the intelligence services in war crimes and torture in afghanistan in the context of the armed conflict in afghanistan they also said that they would protect israel from violations of human rights and the occupied palestinian territories so that that was really a new law for uh this administration where president trump issued recently an executive order basically designating the prosecutor of the the chief prosecutor of the international criminal court as someone that uh as someone that could not be anyone could not could could be criminalized if they would provide any support and assistance uh uh to the chief prosecutor and that that's never seen before and that is now subject by the way to litigation by a number of organizations to order to push back on that but the most recent thing that happened in the state department was equally troubling and very problematic which is that secretary pompeo created a commission that he called commission on unalienable rights and the the announcement of the creation of the commission uh basically said that uh the intention of this commission is to advise the secretary on uh u.s foreign policy on human rights and to revisit uh basically what human rights have been as we understand it and it referred specifically to the way that the united states own founding fathers particularly uh the uh the so-called uh you know the declaration of independence and how we refer the united states to uh in inalienable rights now it sounds that's fine as far as far as you know if you're just thinking about oh how do we really match international human rights with our commitment to fundamental uh freedoms uh historically even though as you know the united states has always been uh has had this serious flaw in in its own commitment to everyone's rights individual human rights particularly towards enslaved people at the time towards you know um disfranchisement of women uh the the the atrocities uh and the genocide that happened against native people indigenous peoples united states but nevertheless it presented itself over the years as the the oldest democracy has fully committed to human rights and now the the trump administration was trying to use that as a way to redefine what human rights are and that was really a serious uh uh matter because if you are if you look at what they are suggesting first of all they for for example suggested yes let's talk about it i i think it's called the hierarchy is it not yeah let's talk about that hierarchy so what what the commission uh that pompeo created uh last year uh intended to do is to to suggest ways for the us government uh on how to reshape its human rights policies and to bring them in line with the united states understanding what fundamental inalienable rights are but essentially what they were trying to do is to redefine essentially what human rights are and create a new hierarchy of rights under international human rights law there is no right that uh that has a supreme or has more uh protection than others there are certain rights that could not be for example derogated from like obligations of the states cannot derogate from the right to life um during uh emergency situation they cannot derogate from the the the right to um the freedom from torture during an emergency situation there are other kinds of rights but essentially all rights are at the same level and you can't really start grading you can't prioritize in a way that would be essentially giving certain rights or certain people with certain rights more protections than other others the idea of the universal human rights is that all rights are indivisible all rights are inherently indivisible they are equal they should be always protected at all times with the exceptions that i mentioned around derogation from obligations in a time of emergency but you can't really say oh i'm going to only protect the right to free speech but i'm not going to protect the right to adequate housing or i want to protect the right to freedom of assembly but i don't want to protect the right to education for example right so what the what this this commission essentially did is came up with the idea that there's because of our history as united states that cherished and established the separation between church and state religious freedom for all that this should be getting more prominence in united states foreign policy on human rights so that religious freedom should be on top and essentially kind of putting religion because as we know religious freedom has always been used and um as a a way to assert the rights of certain religions although the rhetoric and the general statements will tell you oh we are uphold the religious freedom of all people but if you look really closely at the united states government record particularly under conservative republican administrations what they mean by that is protecting the rights of certain religions in that case particular particularly protecting the rights of christians whether in the united states or around the world and yet any other religions will have a different kind of priority that's why there is real contrast between the trump administration saying that they uphold freedom of religion and religious rights and religious freedom and the same time issuing the muslim ban uh as the first executive order on that the the trump administration or president trump issued right there is a real uh paradox between the two the two so this hierarchy is really distorting and is is a clear way of undermining what the system of human rights should be and trying particularly to downgrade social economic rights which are ones that are essential particularly now in the kovit era you know when we are seeing so many people dying because of the lack of access to health care because of the way that they are not protected with the very basic rights to to enjoy those social economic rights so that is going to uh that's a report it was uh secretary pompeo tried to you know um spread his own ideological uh approach to human rights at the united nations uh just last month before the the united nations general assembly uh they're organizing all kinds of events around the world but i think the international community gets most most countries particularly those democratic countries that are really genuinely committed to human rights reject this understanding of of human rights that's why we're hopeful that this initiative is is not going to go anywhere and even if trump wins the election uh i think there will be a very very strong rejection from many u.s allies particularly in europe to this understanding of of of rights that is intended to uh to devalue human rights and human dignity for all and to put religion and even property in some aspects of the report at the top of the pyramid of uh fundamental rights yeah let's talk about that because i i was reading it and i saw that the property and the religion were seem to be given a higher um focus of importance over even women's rights all the other atrocities like you said the uh the covid and everything else can you want to explain that as well as and my other question will be how is pompeo secretary pompeo's speech received absolutely so the real intention behind i think this initiative that i have not had a chance to also mention is that it really from day one we we knew that this is intended to undermine protections particularly for the most vulnerable and marginalized communities in our society and also uh in the world that is um women uh particularly when it comes to reproductive rights uh right to abortion uh sexual reproduction reproductive rights that that something that this administration made it clear that they do not recognize that reproductive rights are part of human rights and so what they tried to do with this new commission is to try to come up with a framework that would exclude certain protections of human rights for particular groups so they they don't say that explicitly but they were trying to say well there hasn't really been any uh universal adoption or recognition of the the rights of women to have an abortion and therefore they should not be covered as human rights they also say there's so many rights that are called human rights and that is not a good idea right but the intention of that is really was not coming from anywhere but the ideological politically motivated understanding of rights that is only civil political rights particularly religious freedom and property rights could be more protected and then when it comes to social economic growth particularly of women of lgbtq communities again this is another area where this report suggests that that it could not be at equal footing because uh how can you argue that there is uh something called sexual rights or rights for people who are based on their sexual orientation um so that that in in essence was the purpose of this of this commission is to come up with a framework that that looks at rights in a very narrow uh generally defined way that excludes individuals and and also erodes a lot of the protections that have been made over the years uh there is a there is a almost a consensus among international human rights bodies that reproductive rights are part of human rights in fact the recent commentary by the un human rights committee which monitors compliance with the international covenant on civil political rights made it very clear uh the the the inter-american commission on human rights equally had said that the you know to protect women's right uh to abortion is part and parcel of the of of of her of their right to equality to gender equality and we should not be undermining that right under no under no no circumstances so um so that is that's the purpose of of that and secretary pompeo's speech um was really a an effort to to try to push his ideological beliefs uh and and to try to offer this new understanding and definition of human rights was not really well accepted in fact we looked at the countries that have joined in support of the declaration that the united states put forward and secretary pompeo at the united nation and it it was mainly about 60 of those governments that supported the declaration where governments that have uh either authoritarian or authoritarian-like regimes so clearly this this framework is not really fit uh is not something that uh countries that uh that support human rights uh that protect human rights and they're genuinely um sensitive and uh concerned about human rights are the ones that are liking the ones that are liking the countries that are liking secretary pompeo's speech and his actions are the ones that are authoritarian regimes that they think that by having the united states lead the way of undermining human rights it would be easier for them to do what they do to their own citizens to their uh to their minority groups to to other people who don't have uh the same protections uh in their own system so that is there was good news for authoritarian regimes for for those that are really against human rights in different parts of the world by the way from all the way from latin america to uh to africa middle east and and and asia uh and so i think that that that is really uh not going to uh to continue i think the new administration if there will be a new administration this is one of the first thing that they need to do to make it clear where the united states stands with regard to international human rights and that our international human rights commitments both under treaty laws the treaties that we ratified as well as under international customary law and under even the fact that we are part of the united nations because if you're part of the united nations as a member state you have to abide by the u.n charter and the u.n charter has a particular fundamental obligations and one of them is the respect for everyone's human rights and there that is something that the united states under the trump administration has grossly violated and continuously tried to undermine uh through disengaging with international human rights body defunding or withdrawing from international organizations um blocking the country to international scrutiny bashing international actors uh uh expert on human rights as i said earlier sanctioning the international criminal court and the prosecutors and treating them as if they were a drug smugglers and terrorists that's unprecedented isn't that unprecedented it is unprecedented i mean there's no no administration had dared to classify designate uh lawyers and judges of an international very well-respected international court that uh over 125 countries are member of uh that have uh including most of us allies in in europe are members of this court and to make it um difficult for any individual to cooperate and assist the prosecutors particularly chief prosecutor now who is designated as someone who would be subject to sanctions so we we think this is a very dangerous step this is a an effort again to to undermine uh the international justice system uh as it was developed nothing is perfect in in the uh in in that system but i think that's that's the best that we have and we have to work to to improve it rather than attack it undermine it and delegitimize it well these treaties if correct me if i'm wrong have been in effect since 1948. well the the the 1948 uh was the universal declaration of human rights which is declaration is not a treaty but it was uh widely adopted by the uh by the united nations and international community since then certain aspects of the universal declaration of human rights are been or most of it was adopted in uh in the form of uh treaty law meaning treaties that specifically detailed the obligations of states to uphold and protect and realize human rights and those become international law obligations certain aspects of the universal declaration of human rights are also part of a customary international law that is also illegally binding on many states including on the united states um and then you have the way that some countries have adopted laws at the national level uh to incorporate internet international human rights law in their own systems the united states is a is an outlier because we really don't have a mechanism to fully implement and incorporate international human rights into our system what we what we do under our us constitution is ratifying the treaty and basically leave it as is and not do anything after we ratify a treaty while the the understanding of the international legal system or a human rights system is that national laws in the national level which in our case federal state and local levels are the are they the way that these treaties should be implemented and translated into laws and policies and programs to to realize those rights that are in the international bill of rights and yet what the united states has done since the early 90s i mean we resisted signing and ratifying international human rights treaties for decades mainly because of uh the racial history of resisting any international scrutiny into our uh uh racial uh racist laws and segregate segregation particularly in the south with even senator bricker trying to introduce an amendment to the u.s constitution that would prevent the the ratification of any international uh human rights treaty which fortunately never passed but it was really close and since then what we do with international human rights treaties is that we adopt them very late in the process we add reservations that make them render all most of those treaties and the provisions really are meaningless we say to the world we already have existing laws and and um federal state and local laws that are uh protecting those rights so we don't do we don't need to do anything further than that so these countries including the united states write their own exclusions to these treaties yes under look under international law the countries have the right to make reservations to treaties it is permissible but there are also impermissible reservations you can't for example make a reservation that says we will not abide by half of the treaty uh or we will we will have an understanding of a particular provisions in the treaty that is going to defeat the purpose and the object of the treaty uh so there's a number of restrictions on how what what kind of restrictions and what kind of reservations or conditions you can put forward in order to limit the incorporation or the uh when you ratify a treaty and what the united states did was uh by the way widely rejected or at least there was a strong opposition by many other countries when they saw the list of reservations some of those reservations came from the point of trying to say well we can't really abide by the treaty because we have laws on the books we have supreme court decisions that allow certain things certain violations of human rights for example when we ratify the international covenant on civil political rights we made it made a condition that we will not be excluding the execution of juveniles in the united states which would would have been prohibited under the iccpr under this treaty and the united states said this because of our laws at the time that was in 1992 but as you know the supreme court outlawed the execution of children and then uh that reservation or condition still remain as such it never we never really withdrew from that uh the same with um for example the obligation to uh to treat individuals as as who are under 18 as children when it comes to the criminal legal system a criminal justice system the united states has many states have laws that treat young uh young people particularly under the age of 18 as adults they try them as adults in the criminal legal system that is fundamentally in violation of international human rights law so united states had to say well we can't really make a make a promise that we will be able to change our laws or we can't ratify this treaty and abide by this obligation because we have certain laws in certain states that allow for juveniles to be treated as adults and be tried in adult uh criminal uh system so there there's really a a a a gap between the united states laws uh and protections of rights and what is required under international human rights uh and that is close over the years it's been closed and this gap is is is not widening maybe under the trump administration it got a little bit wider but but overall the the tendency or the the projection is that we are going towards more compliance with international human rights the problem is we don't have mechanism uh for example the congress if you look at legislation we we never really look at our international human rights obligations when we pass any new laws right that is fundamentally uh problematic because every country under these international treaties have to ensure that its own legislation are compatible with international human rights obligations or commitments and so when you when the legislatures are not doing their job of looking at what international human rights obligations are they are basically putting the united states in violations of our international human rights obligations every action by the executive has to pass the test or the uh the examination of to what extent a particular law a particular policy uh is incompatible compatible with our international human rights obligations and that rarely happens uh maybe with very few exceptions like in the context of asylum law uh immigration particularly or in the context of national security if you remember the debates around the geneva conventions on guantanamo there was a strong opposition within the department of defense against the bush administration effort to undermine the geneva convention and the people who were some people lawyers within the department of defense rejected that or opposed and tried to push back against the idea that the administration would water down and completely ignore major obligations that we took under under the geneva convention right saying it wasn't torture when it was right to treat exactly to treat everyone humanely in our custody not to subject anyone to torture or cruelty um you know the idea of for example that we could create a a a a a system of detention that is not uh not even no laws would be applied uh applicable to the that's what guantanamo was about right the us constitution doesn't apply that was the first argument and the geneva conventions don't apply because these people who are held there do not deserve are not entitled to the protections under the geneva conventions and therefore that meant under a memo but that was signed by president bush at the time that these individuals could be tortured they could be mistreated and that is that is that is really and we never really structurally change the way that we address our international obligations yes president obama when he took office issued an executive order and then later on congress turned this executive order into led part of the legislation in in making sure that people will not be treated uh it would not be torture will not be subject to cruel inhumane degrading treatment but we still for example don't have under federal law we don't have the crime of torture explicitly enumerated in our criminal code uh the cr the crime of torture that as defined by the convention against torture which we ratified in 1994 is only criminalized and is only defined as a crime if it happens overseas not if it happens in the u.s soil and the u.s said well we we don't need to criminalize torture because we also have other laws that essentially criminalize torture but not really because if you look at any laws and we checked all 50 states including obviously the federal federal criminal code there is no criminal domestic prohibition of torture as defined by the convention against torture that's just another example of how we adopt a treaty and yet we do nothing to make sure that those treaties are implemented followed and enjoyed by everyone it's not just about people who are foreign or people who are suspected terrorists in this case it's about people who could be in in police custody this could be people who could be in prison it could be in any situation even uh could could be applicable to treatment of police with regard to use of force uh situations in some instances and we all know we have a big problem in our own country here in the united states that has been you know run amok we it's just uh our our our justice system is out of control it's just not protecting the average american anymore absolutely i mean we we looked at one time we we created a fact sheet uh about how how human rights uh how united states is doing about human rights and we found maybe 15 different ways that we are not we're not we're not providing american citizens people in the united states not just citizens residents anyone in the united states regardless of citizenship that we don't really provide them with these basic human rights that are enjoyed by many millions of people all around the world of course there are countries that don't provide the same level of rights uh with whether because of their nature of the regime that is is being or because of their inability to provide certain protections particularly in the context of social economic rights but but you could really compare the united states is one uh you know oldest democracy in the world uh supposedly have a rule of law and supposedly we are also the richest country in the world and an example a lot of no reasons to be saying look where we can't afford that or we can't do it because we don't have a functioning legal system meaning in terms of systems that are supposedly to protect the rule of law and to protect fundamental rights we do have those but what what happened is that those were created historically for for under a particularly distorted foundation the foundations of excluding people rather than including people and that's why we see uh mass incarceration united states is directly linked to the history of of of uh of discrimination segregation and against black people in the united states and indigenous peoples same thing with policing right the same thing with uh rejecting the rights of i would even argue that it's no coincidence why we are treating women's rights to control their own body this this way because there's a long history of uh rejecting the idea that women would be equal citizens in our country uh and and our democracy operated under the assumption that yeah we could be a democracy and exclude half of the population and enslave um you know the rest um thousands and millions of people and and and do atrocities to the indigenous communities and we'll still be in the demo so as long as we're not reckoning and we're not addressing those structural ways and how our system while improved over time particularly because of the hard-fought civil rights movement and and and the struggles of the women's rights uh movement the lgbtq movement the prisoners rights movement the workers rights movement all of those happened just because people fought for them not because all of a sudden the system or the people who mainly by the way um predominantly white male politicians were sitting in the halls of congress that decide to everybody who don't look like them uh and they this prescribed laws that were not always inclusive in fact money many of many times it were discriminatory so i think that we have a long history that exclude people and structure institutional racism that continues to impact the the the way that we understand and implement human rights or respect human rights of people and therefore we have to do both we have to address the you know history of of atrocities particularly in the context of what happened during that time in the era of slavery era of jim crow and that's why people now are talking about reparations as a as an important aspect of having this conversation and talk about what why is that important then and it's important now and then at the same time address new policies and new structures uh that are about abide that are committed to everyone's human rights and human dignity yeah i don't see that though if we have a continuation of the trump administration i just don't see that really happening do you no it's not happening obviously now it's that's i'm describing what would be the what i'm saying if he were to get a second term if trump were to get a second term i don't see uh i don't know right direction and yeah absolutely i mean if if there would be a trump second trump administration we will only see further um escalation of uh cracking down on rights of people and limiting rights violating people's fundamental rights from immigrants to women to lgbtq to workers rights to people with disabilities all all different people who have struggled hard to get their rights recognized whether by law or by supreme court decisions and the su and the trump administration from day one um had the list of actions that they're gonna take in order to undermine their uh and and and take away those protections and so that will be going in the wrong direction but if there will be in in abiding administration obviously there will be the first thing that they need to do is um re you know do away and undo all the damage recalibrate this country exactly and that is going to be a very challenging thing in terms of the priorities in terms of the cup political capital where they will be spending their time especially if they don't have the senate majority there will be a lot of executive actions and yet the judiciary is more conservative it's more ideological and that will be probably siding with a lot of the people who were trying to challenge executive actions that were probably the right thing to do for example in the context of healthcare or in the context of immigration the daca or the dreamers or in the context of um providing more uh uh protections to women's right in in you know in the way that federal uh assistance and federal support to uh to women's ability to to have abortion etc so all of these things will be will have to be uh addressed and yet uh there's there's so much damage to to undo that i'm i'm really concerned about how the new administration will be able to do that and push for a more progressive policies the the problem is that i fear they will try to go it's not enough to go back to where we were in january 2017. that that was uh there was a lot of problems back then too even under the obama administration if you remember we had mass deportation that back then we had we had also family detention now we didn't have family separation in the way that the trump administration uh yeah this is exacerbated yeah we had a family detention operation uh we worked on that the hotel detention facility in texas was a family detention facility that only under pressure from organization like the aclu a lot of organizing and the lawsuit that was brought to to end that sort of detention we had a problem with in the context of drones the use of drones expanded dramatically under the obama administration and they only towards the end of the obama administration they they realize that they have to put a check on the president's ability to execute individuals including american citizens with no due process this happened under under obama he's the one who executed uh uh and killed anwar al-awlaki who was an american citizen in yemen without any due process without following the federal law uh federal constitution and international law in this case too so i think that there's a lot of things that we need to undo the damage that happened under trump but we need to push further because we need to do more in order to make sure that our rights are not just defined under the narrow understanding and definitions that are now likely to be expanded under the new judiciary under the new supreme court where for example you know access to courts and justice is going to be more limited more limited or for example the rights of certain people when we have we heard already justices that want to cut or the reverse some of the decisions that were made on lgbt rights on marriage equality on uh issues of um that relate to the questions of abortion rights or women's rights but whatever happened to starry decisis you know the things are settled well yeah that's the thing is it's it's very become very politicized and it's become you know uh well we say the right thing during the the confirmation hearings or say nothing at all and then we do whatever we want once we are confirmed i mean that's what we saw in the last confirmation hearing by judge barrett you know she would say well although she said very outrageous things like she wouldn't comment on simple question uh do you think that family separation under uh under the didn't even mention that uh senator cory booker uh asked her do you think that some family separation is is is wrong is wrong and she said well i would not want to i'm paraphrasing her her answer i don't want to weigh in on this because um this is subject to uh hot uh public debate uh or political debate yeah she said that about climate change controversial about that what's controversial about that is that it's any it's inhumane that it's cruel policy that uh what what the what the trump administration did it's not about a political opinion it is about fundamental freedom fundamental rights individuals and families unity and that this is this is the person who was who was bragging and was commended for her family values right uh and so i think that there is uh we're gonna have we're gonna have an uphill battle in protecting and defending long-fought rights uh for a lot of people in america um and will be much more difficult to uh to to push for more progressive policies and laws because of the fact that this administration uh if the if they buy the administration will come in um they will they will they will not have the the the widest mandate uh as we see it's very tight race unfortunately and if if they don't have the senate uh a majority then it will become really difficult to do much to do that and that that's really going to make make it more difficult for the most marginalized and most and historically discriminated individuals and communities particularly communities of color and poor people in the united states right in closing i just want to say that it looks like there was about 130 between law legal organizations and individuals that had commented had sent comments about the um the commission's report i thought that was very telling yes uh there was a wide opposition uh there were letters from faith leaders there were letters from members of congress there were letters from uh from international human rights organizations there were letters from civil civil rights organization very strong opposition across the board uh both to the structure of the commission that was in government was not ideologically balanced their lack even expertise in certain areas most of them were picked because of their commitment to religious freedom we did the research that's what those people were ideology ideology and the second thing was really the the the flaws in their interpretation and their understanding what human rights are and how it should be implemented and putting it in contrast to uh decades long international universal understanding of human rights it's not something that we can change that's the that's the thing united states can be a bad player it can be a bad um influencer but it can change international law the way uh pompeo wants international law is well settled in many areas particularly in the area of human rights there's a lot more that that not even a trump administration can can change that fortunately but obviously that will that means that a lot of people will suffer because of this new understanding of rights that that goes both into domestic policy as well as foreign policy well the international community doesn't have to accept it and i'm sure there's going to be a lot of pushback yes and indeed and they already have made it very clear and i think next monday uh november 9th there will be a united states review before the u.n human rights council where the the the trump administration um even if there will be a obviously announcement of a winner of the presidential election they will still be representing the united states under the trump administration on november 9th because they they will do that under you know january 20th but what they will say they will um they will try to push their ideological understanding of human rights before the international uh uh community and that we will see that government after government will be asking hard questions there will be rejecting this understanding of human rights some of them are doing it very diplomatically very politely but some of them will be more outspoken will be more critical and they will be also addressing other pressing issues there will be addressing race and racism and racial injustice in the united states uh the police killing of black people and particularly with impunity in the united states they will be addressing the issues of uh lack of fundamental rights such as a right to to to to health care uh that such as the right to um water and sanitation the right to of people of indigenous peoples this is an area where the united states is again uh an outlier uh compared you know even compared to canada and new zealand and australia you know the the colonial settler states the united states is really the worst in terms of what we do in violating treaty rights and treaty obligations of indigenous people yes and indigenous peoples i mean we saw it in standing rock where they're just now reopening the environmental assessment of the dakota access pipeline we're seeing it in other places where sacred sites are violated sacred sites religious freedom uh under the customs and traditions of indigenous peoples are being violated over and over and have to before they have to file lawsuits or jurisdiction wise that how tribes that have been recognized under federal law is is not having the same powers that they should have under the treaties i mean the oklahoma decision the recent one regarding land and jurisdiction jurisdictional uh tribe a tribal jurisdictional issues in oklahoma is really a an exception not the rule most of the the decisions by the supreme court in the last several decades were very very uh damaging and very uh seriously and grossly violated the rights of indigenous people so we have a lot to uh to do and and do better i think the monday review will be a check on the united states under the trump administration but also more generally it's not just executive branch it will look at state and local governments you know we most of the rights most of human rights as you know are actually implemented on the state and local level so we really need to work with those leaders with these officials colombia human rights institute has been working with some leaders they will be issuing a statement uh in support of human rights that's really important that these kinds of uh initiatives of state and local mayors governors attorney generals even state legislatures other actors in the state or local level take seriously our human rights that's the only way that we can make progress with or without a federal government meaning state and local governments they can do that they can make commitments uh under the under the paris protocol with regard to climate change that's what we saw california doing even though the trump administration withdrew from the paris protocol on climate change california said uh uh the governor and as a state they said they would follow that uh they brought a a business uh community with with them to say we will be working in reducing emissions um and so forth so so that that is that's something that we will have to be prepared to work in whatever outcome where we will we'll we'll see um you know next few days and weeks uh after the presidential elections thank you for the information and i guess the fight goes on absolutely thank you very much for having me mary thank you i want to thank our guest attorney jamil d'aqua for sharing his insights and opinions on international human rights and the u.s role in this endeavor i also want to thank you our viewers for tuning in for more information on today's topic and our guest visit the legal edition online at the legal thelegaledition.com and remember this information is for general educational purposes it is not legal advice and now you can download our podcast and subscribe online find us on facebook youtube instagram and twitter you