1. Read the First Amendment and tell me where it is granting you any right:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The operative phrase is a restriction on the power of Congress, not the endowment of a right upon individuals.

Also, the Declaration of Independence backs me up:

"that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

As does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,"

These rights are yours simply because you are human, and they are inalienable - you can't give them away even if you want to.

2. You can not bring a lawsuit in US court for a violation of rights based upon legislation unless you have standing. In effect, you must demonstrate that a law has actually caused you harm in some illegitimate, unfair, or unconstitutional manner. One of the easiest ways to gain standing is to violate the law and suffer the consequences of what you perceive to be an unjust law.

3. The Supreme Court has only recognized a right to privacy from government intrusion not from individual or corporate intrusion. Furthermore, there is no assumption to a right to privacy in a public place. The most logical reason for the need to get a permit to film there is that the Park Service recognizes the economic value of licensing something that is in high demand (filming in front of the White House) and could care less about the privacy of individuals (citizens and non-citizens alike).

And what if the law says that you may not talk about certain subjects, that you may not say anything within 10 feet of a political figure, or that you may not investigate state malfeasance? In these hypotheticals, which takes priority, the law or your human rights?

Remember, the constitution does not grant you these rights, they are inherent in you. The constitution forbids the government from passing any law which abridges your rights, but it certainly doesn't stop them from trying (and sometimes succeeding). This means there are necessarily cases where you must use speech to break the law when it is specifically designed to stop you from exercising your rights.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23404042

"Deeply conservative" my ass.

There is another way to describe this travesty of human rights.

Motherfuckers still believing we're morally superior to the rest of the shitty governments of the world. Recognize you're human. Recognize your country has committed crimes against humanity since it's inception. We killed many of the natives of this land, rounded them up, and said, "Here's where you can live."

People. American people, rather -- come on! How many human rights violations does it take before you recognize your own government as the real, honest to gosh hypocrites?

We don't need any more elite anything. Join the goddamn human race.

I second @JustSaying here -- what exactly does it tell you? (Snowden seeking refuge in countries with abysmal human rights records)

What it tells me is that it is pretty pathetic that Snowden's best chances for freedom and a life outside of a concrete cell in Gitmo come from someplace like Venezuela, Ecuador, or Russia as compared to his home, the "land of the free" USA. I think it says much more about the current government and political environment in the US than it does about Snowden.

Given my take on it, I think it is laughable to accuse Snowden of hypocrisy. Aim that word at an entity that deserves it -- the country and government that labels itself:

*the "land of the free" (except for those that we lock up in indefinite detention without trial, those guilty of thoughtcrime, anyone trying to travel freely outside of the country or even from state to state, etc.),

*"home of the brave" (except for any vague threat of 'terrorists', in which case we ask everyone to panic and allow a friendly TSA officer to treat you like a sock puppet, in spite of the fact that you're 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist),

*originator of the bill of rights (unless the government has some tenuous and self serving reason to revoke any/all of your rights: Free speech? Hah! Free press? Hah! Unreasonable search and seizure? No such thing! Due process? Hah! Speedy and public trial? Hah! By a jury? Hah! Cruel and unusual punishments? Waterboarding and other 'enhanced interrogation techniques' don't count! The government laughs at the bill of rights and pisses on their grave.),

*bastion of democracy (except I don't remember voting on ANY of the shit that Snowden brought to our attention, and it seems that neither do any/most of our elected 'representatives' -Hah!), and

*home of the American dream (as long as your dream doesn't involve freedom from any of the myriad transgressions listed above).

Oh how my once proud nation has fallen.

"[Snowden] is seeking refuge in countries with abysmal human rights records"

... - and that should tell you all you really need to know.

I agree with Schlub.

I don't even stop to sign things I agree with. The Human Rights Campaign has almost lost my membership because I am tired of being called AND pestered on the sidewalk weekly.

Meet my demands or I'll die seems pretty stupid from the outside if their demands were say Let me Go. Their demands aren't that though, they're demanding basic human rights, to be treated like international law and the treaties we've signed require. There's a reason why Gitmo is located on Cuba, and it's not for the beaches. It's because if they were on American soil it would be easier to do something about this.

By 'scary bitch', do we mean 'heroic human rights activist'?

I think the only real important part of her entire message comes starting at about the 7:10 mark. The rest of it to me is no wonder that Nestle acts the way they do in a free market that doesn't make them pay for externalities and offers millions in profits.

Even the CEO, while quite awful, has a point. Water as a human right is not guaranteed and is an extreme. Currently it's subsidized in the U.S. (not sure about elsewhere), but it does cost money and is part of a water market.

the CEO's message is quite telling (somewhere here already)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Brabeck-Letmathe

Peter Braebeck, Austrian Jew, b. 1944, worked extensively in S.A. (his wealthy connections most likely allowed his family to flee Germany after the war) in various marketing and managing oif food concerns, well-known for his human rights abuses or dis-concern, a real piece a work this one and Nestle Nazi's still own a huge chunk of the world market due primarily to the wealth they absconded with and amassed during the Nazi regime.

The same CEO sits on the Board of Directors of Credit Suisse Group, L'Oréal, and Exxon Mobil.

Nestle is complete shit, bottle your own water.

When Patino railed against the British for stripping Julian Assange of his Human Rights, for denying him safe passage to Ecuador... epic!

So wrong. Words mean what they mean regardless of what you mean them to mean.

There is no such thing as "human rights." Rights, by their very nature, are simply laws and laws are just words. These words only have meaning when people abide by them and there is nothing in nature that requires people to do so. The reality is that you are afforded rights by the government that rules over you. The government holds the position of authority and, as a citizen, you agree to this. If you do not like this, you should refuse government rule. To hate and distrust your ruler while accepting their rule is pointless. Leave the country, become an anarchist, start a revolution... arguing about semantics (i.e. laws) doesn't change the fact that people with power can exert that power in any way they see fit.

For me, it's simply about percentages.

The majority of Christians and Muslims are good people.

Both religions have some funny ideas that most modern people find abhorrent.

Some, like slavery, have been almost universally discarded.

Others, such as the role of women or tolerance of homosexuality, less so. I'd argue that, for all its faults, Christianity has made more progress in this area than Islam. It's by no means perfect (see WBC, women priests, etc), but it's better than the way women are treated in places like Saudi.

The fact is that taking a random sampling of their congregations, Muslims are more likely to hold beliefs that are incompatible with modern human rights values.

Partially, I believe that part of the problem is inherent in the teachings of Islam.

But I feel that a significant factor has been ignored in this debate.

Muslims make up a much larger percentage of the worlds poor and uneducated, and that to my mind, is probably the most compelling explanation as to why there are more radical Muslims.