If they disarmed private citizens, then I would have say that yes, the United States did indeed violate their rights. It's one thing to disarm the military of a defeated nation, it's quite another to disarm the civilian population.
Do you think that it was not necessary to disarm civilian populations in the wake of an
unconditional surrender? A surrender that was agreed to by the losing belligerents? Are you advocating that civilians should not be disarmed in the wake of a military defeat?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpsrv/aponline/19991003/aponline132612_001.htm
Were the British, French, Russian and US forces serving in former Yugoslavia wrong in trying to confiscate firearms from the opposing factions and the civilian populace in the wake of a cessation of hostilities? If so, what do you recommend be done instead?
The US in France post-WWII:
http://www.army.mil/cmh/books/wwii/civaff/ch26.htm#b5
NEED FOR STABILIZING RESISTANCE FORCES IS RECOGNIZED
[G-5, AFHQ, Rpt, 18-23 Aug 44]
Bands of young members of the FFI have been roaming the countryside and some have taken threatening attitudes towards civilians. The activity of these bands is less pronounced than it was immediately after the landings. Also there has been some indication of disagreement between members of the FFI due, it is thought, to the fact that the "regulars" have considered that some of the recent "converts" were not entitled to membership. Many are said to be wearing armbands who are not authorized to wear them. The danger of possible civilian disorders has been brought officially to the attention of Colonel Lavilleon and it has been considered proper to suggest that members of the FFI, who have no military purpose to perform, should be disarmed. Colonel Lavilleon has taken the position that any precipitous action in requiring the FFI to disarm would be unfortunate, but he recognizes that the situation requires attention and proposes a program as follows:
(1) Instructions to chiefs to disarm all below the age of 18 and above the age of 45
(2) Immediate enrollment of all authorized members, numbering of their armbands to prevent misrepresentation, and disarming those not entitled to serve as members of the FFI.
(3) Control of arms at local headquarters and authorization for the use thereof only on authorized missions.
Keep in mind that these were loyal free French citizens desiring to offer some level of a constabulary in the wake of the German defeat in France. The US forbade civilians from possessing arms unless they were members of the recognized FFI. The Free French government did not oppose this.
In post WWII Belgium and Luxembourg:
http://www.army.mil/cmh/books/wwii/civaff/ch27.htm#b4
EISENHOWER THE RESISTANCE GROUPS TO DISARM
[Eisenhower Order of the Day, 29 Sep 44, Summary of Belgian Press Opinion, 3 Oct 44, SHAEF files, G-5, 17.02, SHAEF Mission to Belgium, Final Rpt, pt. I]
The hour of combat has thus passed for most of you as soldiers of the resistance troops. This does not necessarily mean that your services are no longer necessary. The war has been carried into enemy territory and if your government orders you to continue the struggle as soldiers of the
regular armed Belgian forces, I shall be proud to have you again under my command. In the meantime, in my capacity of Supreme Commander, I desire that it shall be made known to members of the resistance groups that those who are no longer in combat or required by orders of Allied military leaders as guards or for other military duties can not do better to aid the military effort than by giving up their arms to their authorities and by waiting for instructions as to the manner in which they can take part in the struggle to come.
So, Eisenhower disarmed the resistance. Was he violating their inalienable right to possess weapons of war upon the cessation of hostilities?
Some excerpts from the US Constabulary in post WWII Germany:
"The civil affairs detachments of the 1st European Civil Affairs Regiment (ECAR ) , which had come through France with First Army, inaugurated military government in Germany, beginning with D8B1 at Roetgen. They were integrated detachments, each having one British officer, and were scheduled to be withdrawn and reorganized into military government teams which would be exclusively American. The procedure was the same everywhere, as it was to be throughout Germany. First came the posting of the Supreme Commander's proclamation and the ordinances. Here a temporary hitch had developed. SHAEF had sent out the proclamations on 10 September but had to withdraw them promptly for revision when Washington raised objections to the language. Until the first week of October, 12th Army Group substituted a "Notice to the Population" announcing the occupation.2 The second step was to find the Buergermeister (mayor) or, if he could not be found or was obviously a Nazi, appoint one and thereby establish a link to the population.
Next came a series of security actions. The first was to collect weapons, ammunition, and explosives in civilian possession and confiscate radio transmitters and other means of communicating with the enemy, including pigeons. The orders to surrender prohibited items were followed by house-to-house searches, which in fought-over areas frequently turned up sizable collections of arms that the civilians had not turned in, probably more out of fear than malice. For convenience and for security, the civilians also had to be kept out of the way of the tactical troops."
"The Germans were conquered and their property was "liberated." Looting had become something of an art. Soldiers stationed themselves outside military government offices and intercepted civilians bringing in weapons."
And before you claim that weapon turn-ins were the norm:
http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/gott_mobility.pdf
Squadrons were set up throughout Germany to conduct raids on suspected illegal activities, which included contraband weapons:
"Each squadron was to form four search teams that would enter each building. There they would locate the building leader and hand him instructions written in Polish telling him to assemble all women and children in one room and instruct the men to stay in their own rooms. An officer, with witnesses present, would frisk the women for weapons and large items evident by sight or light touch. When this was completed the troopers would frisk the men and thoroughly search the rooms for weapons and contraband. Troopers would take any prisoners to a screening center that was run by eight men and 10 guards under the squadron intelligence officer."
The history of disarming civilian populations to quell resistance to the establishment of a new civil authority is a long one. One in which the United States has long played a role. When the possessors of these weapons include insurgents that oppose the formation of a civil authority, especially one that is predicated on military defeat culminating in unconditional surrender, weapon confiscation has always become the requisite to accomplish the end goal.
Among the many reasons for civilian disarmament was the desire for retribution by many civilians in countries foremerly occupied by the Germans in avenging wrongs that had been foisted upon them. This occurs during most liberations of occupied countries and even in somewhat homogenous countries like Germany (post WWII). Your belief does not account for the political realities of such events, among others.
Your idealism is admirable, out of context. However, in the context of history, it falls a bit short.
