On November 5, the United States had its first-ever formal evaluation under the Universal Period Review process before the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). This process was established in 2006 to periodically review the human rights records of UN member states. But the George W. Bush administration apparently thought it was above this sort of thing.

As a result of this year’s process, on November 10, the UNHRC issued a report of its findings and recommendations from the U.S. review. Most obvious were recommendations that the U.S. ratify several international human rights conventions and treaties that we have not yet formally endorsed. To no surprise, our use of torture and racial profiling, and the obvious culture of xenophobia apparent in our national discourse, also figured prominently in the feedback.

Below are some key excerpts from the report’s recommendations on how the U.S. can improve its human rights standing in the world. The recommending nation appears in parenthesis after each item.

92.1. Ratify without reservations the following conventions and protocols: CEDAW; the ICESCR; the Convention on the Rights of the Child; the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families; the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance; the Statute of the International Criminal Court; those of the ILO; the United Nations Declaration on Indigenous Peoples, and all those from the Inter-American Human Rights System (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela) [with similar recommendations by France, Russia, Spain, Canada, Japan, and several other nations];

92.51. Comply with its international obligations for the effective mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions, because of their impact in climate change (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela);

92.56. Repeal the norms that limit freedom of expression and require journalists to reveal their sources, under penalty of imprisonment (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela);

92.66. Enact a federal crime of torture, consistent with the Convention, and also encompassing acts described as ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ (Austria);

92.67. Take legislative and administrative measures to address a wide range of racial discrimination and inequalities in housing, employment and education (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea);

92.68. Take legislative and administrative measures to ban racial profiling in law enforcement (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea);

92.70. Take appropriate legislative and practical measures to improve living conditions through its prisons systems, in particular with regard to access to health care and education (Austria);

92.75. End the blockade against Cuba2 (Cuba); Put an end to the infamous blockade against Cuba (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela); Lift the economic, financial and commercial blockade against Cuba, which affects the enjoyment of the human rights of more than 11 million people (Plurinational State of Bolivia);

92.81. Take the necessary measures in favor of the right to work and fair conditions of work so that workers belonging to minorities, in particular women and undocumented migrant workers, do not become victims of discriminatory treatment and abuse in the work place and enjoy the full protection of the labour legislation, regardless of their migratory status (Guatemala);

92.82. Adopt a fair immigration policy, and cease xenophobia, racism and intolerance to ethnic, religious and migrant minorities (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela);

92.85. Formulate goals and policy guidelines for the promotion of the rights of indigenous peoples and cooperation between government and indigenous peoples (Finland);

92.88. Invite United Nations Special Rapporteurs to visit and investigate Guantanamo Bay prison and United States secret prisons and to subsequently close them (Islamic Republic of Iran);

92.122. Abolish the death penalty and in any event, establish a moratorium as an interim measure towards full abolition (Australia); Abolish capital punishment and, as a first step on that road, introduce as soon as practicable a moratorium on the execution of death sentences (Hungary); That steps be taken to set federal and state-level moratoria on executions with a view to abolish the death penalty nationwide (Norway);

… and much more.

It is a good sign that the U.S. chose to submit itself to this level of scrutiny. However, good intentions will mean nothing if the Obama administration does not follow through on these constructive recommendations from its partners in the world community.

Talk is cheap. Rhetoric is cheap. The world wants action. And the world wants some positive change that we can all believe in.

Are we strong enough as a nation to comply? Sadly, I shall not hold my breath.

On November 17, in federal court in New York City, Guantanamo detainee Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was convicted of a single charge of conspiracy in connection with the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. He was acquitted of 284 other counts against him. Ghailani was the first Gitmo detainee to be tried in federal court rather than a military commission. His sentencing hearing is scheduled for January.

Some on the right are pointing to the acquittals as proof that trying terrorism suspects in a civilian court does not work. But these critics are conveniently ignoring the fact that four other defendants in the same bombings had been sentenced in 2001 – also in federal court – to life in prison without parole. Ghailani could face a similar sentence, and will serve at least a minimum of 20 years.

They also misconstrue the fact that some evidence in the case – specifically, information obtained under torture – was inadmissible in the case. This is routine in credible legal systems, since experts agree that torture does not produce reliable intelligence. After all, under torture, the victim is likely to say whatever he thinks his torturer wants to hear, in order to make the pain stop.

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), which represents a number of Guantanamo detainees, believes that the civilian court system is imperfect but still more just than the military commissions. CCR issued the following statement in response to the Ghailani verdict: “CCR questions the ability of anyone who is Muslim to receive a truly fair trial in any American judicial forum post-9/11. Both the military commission system and federal criminal trials have serious flaws. However, on balance the Ghailani verdict shows that federal criminal trials are far superior to military commissions for the simple yet fundamental reason that they prohibit evidence obtained by torture. If anyone is unsatisfied with Ghailani’s acquittal on 284 counts, they should blame the CIA agents who tortured him.” Indeed, and the Bush-Cheney administration that authorized the abuse.

Joanne Mariner, counterterrorism director at Human Rights Watch, also questions the military commission system’s competence. “The federal court system has been tested over time, while the military commissions are making things up as they go along,” said Mariner.

Daphne Eviatar, of Human Rights First, agrees. “The questions [Ghailani's] verdict raise are why the government has not tried all terror suspects in federal court and when will the government announce additional prosecutions,” said Eviatar. “I have watched the hearings at Guantanamo and Ghailani’s trial in New York. What strikes me is how efficient, fair, and transparent the federal court prosecution was in contrast to the recent Khadr decision at Guantanamo which left one with the uneasy feeling of justice gone awry. The military commissions remain rife with constitutional defects. Federal courts have far more legal tools to prosecute terror suspects.”

Rob Freer, Amnesty International’s USA researcher, addressed the critics’ attitude as follows: “If the only procedure that critics of ordinary criminal trials would accept is one that guarantees convictions regardless of the evidence, then what has been demonstrated is a gross failure on their part to commit to the most basic principles of fairness.”

So President Obama now faces an important choice: Appeasing the right vs. doing what’s right.

Choosing the latter is the only way he’ll be able to keep his campaign promise, albeit too late, of closing Guantanamo and returning this nation to the rule of law.

And it’s the only way he’ll be seen as leading, not following, his critics.

On November 9, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia heard arguments on whether Mumia Abu-Jamal, Pennsylvania’s most famous death row inmate, should have his original death sentence reinstated or serve life in prison without parole. Abu-Jamal had been convicted and sentenced to death for the 1981 murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner.

Abu-Jamal’s latest hearing was the result of a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court back in January, 2010, to throw out an earlier Third Circuit ruling that had rescinded his death sentence because of flawed jury instructions in his original trial. The issue involves how jurors were to weigh various mitigating factors that may have resulted in a sentence other than the death penalty.

The Supreme Court ordered the appellate court to reconsider its decision in light of a similar case in Ohio, in which the high court had reinstated the death sentence, saying that jurors do not need to agree unanimously on mitigating factors.

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, a decision from the Third Circuit is “not expected before 2011.”

Meanwhile, as the judiciary reconsiders the penalty, many are questioning the legitimacy of the original trial that led to Abu-Jamal’s conviction.

A 2000 report by Amnesty International noted that “numerous aspects of this case clearly failed to meet minimum international standards safeguarding the fairness of legal proceedings.” Amnesty expressed concerns about judicial bias and hostility, police misconduct, and the apparent withholding of evidence from the jury. Amnesty called for new trial “in a neutral venue, where the case has not polarized the public as it has in Philadelphia.”

And, in 2009, the 95th annual convention of the NAACP passed an emergency resolution calling on Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate the cases of Abu-Jamal and some other prisoners.

A coalition of organizations and activists then followed the NAACP’s lead and delivered more than 25,000 letters to the Justice Department, calling for a civil rights investigation into the Abu-Jamal case. This was accompanied by a press conference that included representatives of the NAACP, the National Lawyers Guild, Amnesty International, the Campaign to End the Death Penalty, the Riverside Church Prison Ministry, and other groups.

To date, the Justice Department appears to have ignored the matter.

Abu-Jamal’s staunchest supporters insist that he is innocent, that he was set up, and that racial bias and witness coercion had played a big part in an unfair trial. They also point out that Faulkner was killed with a .44 caliber gun, while the gun that Abu-Jamal was licensed to carry as a nighttime taxi driver was a .38 caliber.

At the same time, there are many people here in the Philadelphia area, and probably elsewhere, who want to believe that Abu-Jamal is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, and who are calling for his prompt execution. They say that his execution will finally bring closure to Faulkner’s family and his colleagues in the Philadelphia Police Department.

But I ask them this: How can true closure be achieved unless we are absolutely certain that justice was served in a fair and unbiased manner?

Without that, we’re not looking at justice, but rather at a case of reckless revenge against a conveniently controversial character.

And that seems downright un-American.

In October, a U.S. military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay sentenced Omar Khadr to 40 years in prison. A plea deal reduced his sentence to eight years. Under the deal, Khadr pled guilty to five charges, including murder and conspiracy to engage in terrorism.

What sets this apart from other terrorism cases is that Khadr was only 15 years old when he was arrested on an Afghan battlefield. He is also a Canadian citizen.

Because of his young age at the time of his arrest, Khadr has been recognized as a child soldier by the United Nations. As such, international standards prescribe that he be protected and rehabilitated, not prosecuted and abused.

Human Rights First explains: “In 2002, the U.S. ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, which prohibits the use of children under 18 in armed conflict and requires signatories to criminalize such conduct and rehabilitate former child soldiers as well as provide ‘all appropriate assistance for their physical and psychological recovery and their social reintegration.’ .”

But then, this is America in the age of the “war on terror”, where human rights no longer seem to apply.

And the denial of Khadr’s rights is nothing new.

Upon his arrival in U.S. custody, Khadr was allegedly subjected to harsh interrogations, beatings, and other ill-treatment. Interrogators allegedly threatened to kill Khadr’s family if he didn’t cooperate. This is how we treat our children in captivity.

And, despite the fact that confessions and other information obtained under torture and other forms of coercion are known to be unreliable, the judge in the case decided to admit it all into evidence anyway. So the deck was already stacked against Khadr at trial.

Amnesty International had this to say about the outcome: “Plea deals, while doubtless an efficient method for dispensing with cases quickly, do not always represent justice being done. They resemble more closely a high stakes game of poker – the defendant reviews his cards and then decides whether to bet on the hand he has been dealt or cut his losses by folding.”

Amnesty continues: “The added twist at the Military Commissions is that the house gets to make the rules and stack the deck. Khadr had already written to Judge Parrish expressing his lack of faith that he could receive a fair trial. It seems that, having studied his cards, he decided to fold after all.”

So there you have it: At Guantanamo Bay, “justice” is just a high-stakes poker game for brown-skinned males of all ages. Human rights be damned.

This is what America now stands for. And what George W. Bush began, Barack Obama continues.

The November 2 elections whittled away at the Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate and gave the Republicans control once again of the House of Representatives.

So what prompted so many people to vote for the GOP — the very same party that got this nation into the current economic mess?

Two things that go hand in hand: Lies and money.

The lies came via the campaign ads and partisan propaganda. The money to pay for them came from the corporations to whom the U.S. Supreme Court awarded the keys to the floodgates through its decision in a little case known as Citizens United. Big business can now pump unlimited funds into the election process to further its own interests, little people be damned.

To convince the voter of the need to vote Republican, and thereby preserve the greedy comfort of the very rich, the ads twist reality better than any circus contortionist.

I’ve heard ads slamming Democrats for supporting “Obama’s bank bailout” — even though it was actually Bush’s bank bailout.

I’ve heard ads slamming Democrats for supporting “Obama’s auto bailout” — even though it was actually Bush’s idea.

I’ve heard ads slamming Democrats for supporting “Obama’s tax increases” — even though Obama actually cut most people’s taxes.

I’ve heard ads slamming Democrats for supporting “government-run health care” — even though the same old greedy insurance companies will still be running it, and even though people love their government-run Medicare.

On a similar note, I’ve heard ads slamming “Obamacare” as if there’s something wrong with wanting insurers to cover children with pre-existing conditions.

And I’ve heard ads slamming “Obamacare” as if there’s something wrong with wanting insurers to continue your coverage when you get sick and really need it.

The ads are designed to appeal to emotion (usually fear), to strike the audience at a primal level that bypasses the filter of critical thought. It’s a technique that folks like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have mastered quite profitably.

And it’s a technique that works because it’s much harder to think independently than it is to passively absorb whatever Fox News and the campaign airwaves happen to throw your way.

Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “Convinced that the people are the only safe depositories of their own liberty, and that they are not safe unless enlightened to a certain degree, I have looked on our present state of liberty as a short-lived possession unless the mass of the people could be informed to a certain degree.”

I don’t think Jefferson had the Fox News kind of “information” in mind, nor the kind of “enlightenment” that comes with corporate-sponsored campaign propaganda.

And so, by Jefferson’s own reasoning, we appear to be reaching the end of true liberty — if we really ever had it at all.

On October 25, a defenseless female MoveOn.org volunteer was assaulted outside the site of a Kentucky Senatorial debate. While engaged in street theater trying to get Rand Paul’s attention, Lauren Valle was pushed to the ground by some of Paul’s supporters, and then one of them stomped on her head. She ended up with a concussion.

A month earlier, on September 23, a male Sharron Angle supporter pushed a female Harry Reid supporter and then punched her female friend in the face at a Nevada Senatorial debate.

I do not see these as two isolated incidents. I see them as two very disturbing symptoms of a new culture of hatred and violence on the far right.

We saw it brewing last March, when Tea Partiers greeted members of the Congressional Black Caucus by hurling the N-word at them. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver was spat on in the incident. Then they shouted “faggot” at openly gay Rep. Barney Frank.

At least those right-wing protesters were unarmed, as far as I know. But, also that month, ABC News reported that “at least 10 House Democrats received violent threats to their lives or property.”

At a protest in Washington, DC, last year, a Tea Partier was spotted with a sign that read: “We came unarmed (this time)”. T-shirts are available online that sport the same threatening slogan.

But that line had already been crossed. In the backlash to President Obama’s inauguration last year, some people showed up at town hall meetings with loaded guns. And sales of guns and ammunition surged, as did the number of death threats against Obama.

Perhaps most disturbing is the fact that some Republican leaders are encouraging this kind of thing, either directly or indirectly.

We have Sarah Palin tweeting to her followers, “Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!” On her Facebook page was a U.S. map marking the locations of 20 House Democrats who voted for the health care bill and who represent districts that the Republicans carried in 2008. The 20 locations were marked with crosshairs.

We have Sharron Angle suggesting “Second Amendment remedies” if the elections don’t turn out as the Tea Partiers would hope.

And, ironically, we have Glenn Beck warning his followers of impending violence from the left. This, of course, serves to convince the Tea Partiers that their own violent acts are all in self-defense.

But might does not make right. And we do not have true democracy if political opponents are kept down by force of violence. What we have instead is the threat of mob rule. And I don’t think that’s what the Founding Fathers had in mind for this country.