The ratification of the treaty did not do squat. The U.S. ratifies treaties such as the ICCPR with reservations and declarations, which ensure that they do not provide any broader rights to U.S. citizens. For example, that treaty required that no one under 18 be put to death. The the U.S. did not adopt that part; only a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision decided that issue a couple of months ago.

Also, the teeth are always taken out, there is no way for a u.s. resident to enforce the provisions.

Commenting on US ratification of the ICCPR, the American Civil Liberties Union lamented that 'the endorsement of the most important treaty for the protection of civil rights yielded not a single additional enforceable right to citizens and residents of the United States.'

About my entire reaction to that is to wonder if a sizeable horde of 'frivolous' lawsuits under the treaty - rather than the statements that such rights would be dishonored - in less of a legalism and more of a form of direct mass protest in a courtroom, until the initial treaty is advanced...

Such an action would be morally neccesary due to the broader implications for civil liberties, but would require resources vaster than those I currently posess; my current specialization are federal legislatures and media, though I'm approaching 'passingly deadly' in these domain.

~sigh~ Gotta work on my hustle; it'll add a few new dimension to this game, but I'm still more likely to get such contract enforced by the backroom...

~sigh~

Oh well...

Thank you very much for your informative replies.