The U.N.'s Human Wrongs Council: Terrorists' best friend
A United Nations Human Rights Council official's reprehensible assertion that “Boston got what it deserved,” as a Breitbart.com headline put it, should prompt a U.S. exit from both the council and the U.N. But don't hold your breath — the council's long history of apologetics for terrorists seems not to bother the Obama administration in the least.
U.S. membership on the council was among this administration's first foreign-policy actions. Assistant Secretary of State Esther Brimmer called the council “this esteemed body” at its March session. Yet the statement published at foreignpolicyjournal.com by Richard Falk, a U.N. special rapporteur for human rights in the Palestinian territories, deserves excoriation, not esteem.
A 9/11 conspiracy theorist who's also anti-Israel, Mr. Falk minimizes the Boston Marathon bombings. He characterizes the search for the bombers as a “somewhat hysterical Boston dragnet” and downplays the victims' suffering. And he even justifies the bombings as “blowback” against a U.S. “global domination project ... bound to generate all kinds of resistance in the post-colonial world.”
Such is the prevailing outlook of the U.N. Human Rights Council. It's controlled by Organization of Islamic Cooperation member states, which lately demanded that a U.N. definition of terrorism include an exception for “legitimate struggle.”
By remaining on the Human Rights Council and in the U.N., the Obama administration cozies up to — and financially supports — despicable legitimization of terrorist attacks against Americans.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The Kathleen Kane chronicles: The Pa. attorney general’s credibility is gone
- Sunday pops
- U.N. Watch: Cheering on Iran
- PSEA oops: Letters & the law
- Taxing policies
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- Obama’s amnesty: Abuse of power
- The high court & ObamaCare: Language matters
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Liquor reform for a gas extraction tax?: It should be a nonstarter