Human rights are the most well meaning of political machinations that the West uses to assert its dominance over the rest of the world. Based on Western ideals of politics, freedom and welfare it embodies the "we know best" attitude that kept colonialism alive for so long. Ignored locally, as witnessed by Australia's refugee policy, the USA's refusal to ratify the Social and Economic Rights Covenant and Geneva convention, it is used by Western powers both left and right to assert their interests in international relations. This was witnessed in Afghanistan where we saw ex-post facto arguments concerning women's "right" to education as defense for invasion, an excuse not used in any other patriarchal nations where there is not a national interest at stake, and Saddams' torture chambers, only to be occupied and used in the same albeit lesser manner by the Coalition of the Willing. Human rights are demanded by the populace but exploited by the powerful all under the pretense of spreading "freedom". However, this freedom is liberalism and with it comes all the pitfalls of liberalism.

Furthermore, to call them rights means that there must be someone you can appeal to when they are violated. As the video said, there are 26 million people in slavery. We know where most of them are yet do nothing to rectify the situation as they are in poor Eastern European and West African nations that have no profitable resource to entice the powers that be. Is the West not violating their human rights by not intervening when they have the capacity to do so? Are you not violating the human rights of starving people when you buy that 2nd television? The argument might be given that they are not within your jurisdiction. To that I say the declaration is UNIVERSAL. The obligation is also universal. Chances are that there are people in your very city that are going hungry, with no shelter. To what extent are you violating their human rights?

Another example of the Westernisation of the human rights regime is article 23 and 24 of the charter. 23:Everyone has the right to work, for equal pay, for just renumeration and join trade unions.
How often are these violated in nations that are the bastion of rights such as the USA and France? Women still get 75% of the pay FOR THE SAME JOB. This is hard to get your head around as it wont occur in the same workplace but read into it and you will find out it works.
24: Everyone has the right to paid leave.
USA .. no such right despite signing on. So, you are violating human rights. Furhtermore, how does an agrarian society conform to this type of system? How can there be paid leave when there is no wage system? This is further evidence of the Westernisation of the human rights system.

So, despite these criticisms human rights are crucially important to the wellbeing of millions of vulnerable populations. But don't for a second think that there is no work to be done nor is the concept anywhere close to a "truth" about the world. It is a Westernised, historically contingient set of principles that are only adhered to when it is convenient to the powers that be. Adherence to human rights can liberate many but also enslave.

... >> ^spoco2:

>> ^geo321:
I don't know if these were designed for children as toys. To be a kid in 1820 Geneva, being given a set of solid gold guns laced with diamonds and pearls.

No, of course they weren't made for kids. But the adult's who owned them would have shown them to kids. Then the kids would associate shooting a gun with a pretty bird coming out and singing. If they then saw a real gun they could be forgiven for thinking that's what would happen if they shot that.

>> ^geo321:

I don't know if these were designed for children as toys. To be a kid in 1820 Geneva, being given a set of solid gold guns laced with diamonds and pearls.


No, of course they weren't made for kids. But the adult's who owned them would have shown them to kids. Then the kids would associate shooting a gun with a pretty bird coming out and singing. If they then saw a real gun they could be forgiven for thinking that's what would happen if they shot that.

I don't know if these were designed for children as toys. To be a kid in 1820 Geneva, being given a set of solid gold guns laced with diamonds and pearls.

>> ^hpqp:

>> ^Sarzy:
Umm... I know we're supposed to automatically be outraged in cases like this, but if I have the story right, the man was pointing an AR-15 at the cops as they came through the door. Google that -- it's a pretty serious looking gun. Were the police supposed to wait until he started shooting at them and only then fire back? They had the siren going before they came in, they yelled something before they broke the door down, so what else were they supposed to do (other than not be there at all)?

If the man was pointing a rifle at the swat/door, then the shooting is comprehensible. There is quite a difference between this and the downright manslaughter without justification in this video.
Where I live, we have the opposite problem: cops can barely defend themselves without the general public going ape-shit and instantly siding with the alleged culprits. In Geneva, a group of gangsters robbed an exchange bureau with automatic rifles, came out guns blazing at the cops during traffic hour (i.e. many civilians around...)
and now one of them is attacking the Geneva police in court, because he was shot although allegedly unarmed. (article en français)


That's only true if the cops had reason to be there in the first place. Which brings me to another problem, the issuance of search warrants without due diligence by judges. Proposed amendment to the 4th should be

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, on the penalty of perjury , and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. In the event that a search warrant is found to have been enacted wrongly and bodily harm is caused to the defendant, or anyone associated at the time and place of the warrants execution, the executing officers, all present at the time of execution, are to be be punished for whatever harm has come upon the defendant and or any associates. The minimum penalty for a wrongful death shall be a charge of manslaughter. Furthermore any property damages, including livestock, or household pets, shall also warrant appropriate restitution and punishment.

They lied about the shooting, they haven't said whether they found drugs or not. I'm inclined, as I always am, to not believe a word of what an officer says; let alone the organization they work for.

In short, full on criminal investigation into every, fucking, one of the bastards. The people deserve, no, are guaranteed the right to be safe in their persons, and properties.

>> ^Sarzy:

Umm... I know we're supposed to automatically be outraged in cases like this, but if I have the story right, the man was pointing an AR-15 at the cops as they came through the door. Google that -- it's a pretty serious looking gun. Were the police supposed to wait until he started shooting at them and only then fire back? They had the siren going before they came in, they yelled something before they broke the door down, so what else were they supposed to do (other than not be there at all)?


If the man was pointing a rifle at the swat/door, then the shooting is comprehensible. There is quite a difference between this and the downright manslaughter without justification in this video.

Where I live, we have the opposite problem: cops can barely defend themselves without the general public going ape-shit and instantly siding with the alleged culprits. In Geneva, a group of gangsters robbed an exchange bureau with automatic rifles, came out guns blazing at the cops during traffic hour (i.e. many civilians around...)
and now one of them is attacking the Geneva police in court, because he was shot although allegedly unarmed. (article en français)

bill whittle=revisionist and apologist.
george bush may 1st 2003 on the deck of the abraham lincon:
"major combat operations in iraq have ended.in the battle of iraq,the united states and her allies ...have prevailed".
whittle is correct that bush never once says "mission accomplished".do i need to point out the semantics here?

then he goes on to conflate that somehow iraqis ability to vote (while ignoring the massive amount of data concerning fraud,intimidation and outright scandal) is the very thing which inspired epypt,syria and jordan to rise up against their theocratic,oppressive regimes.
this is patently false and the reasons are well documented and not one of them is iraqs ability to vote.

waterboarding was the reason we got positive intell on bin laden?
ok now he is just making stuff up to fit his own premise.there is NO documentation to back that statement up.in fact the intelligence has revealed the exact opposite.

article 3 of the geneva convention CLEARLY states that waterboarding IS considered torture.case closed.end of discussion.

this video is so chock full of disinformation that my head may explode due to the sheer volume.
bill whittles bush-love is well known.
the only satisfaction i get from this video is the fact that bin laden was assasinated under obama and must keep this tool up at night crying into his pillow.
poor poor whittle.

always funny how politicians invoke the "safety of the troops"...
first, the US has been waging an aggressive and illegal war for 10 years. The highest crime under the geneva convention.
second, the percentage of civilian casualties to military casualties has risen every year. it's somewhere around 25 to one now (anyone have the stat?).
third, the public's right to know what their governments are doing *should* be one of the freedoms protected by a true democracy. but we're not a democracy (see Citizens United vs. Fed. Election Committee) and our military doesn't protect freedom, other than the corporate elite's freedom to do whatever the hell they want.

Those of you that aren't in the know, here is a breakdown of what's happened since they began releasing these documents:(provided by The Guardian)

Sunday 28 November

• TECH: DDoS attack hits WikiLeaks as first set of US diplomatic cables is published.

Wednesday 1 December

• TECH: Tableau Software, which offers free software for data visualisation, removes the public views of graphics built using information about the diplomatic cables. It is the first company to distance itself from Wikileaks, and admits that the reason was pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, an independent senator with ties to the Democratic party.

• POLITICS: Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland security, calls for Wikileaks to be taken offline. "I call on any other company or organization that is hosting Wikileaks to immediately terminate its relationship with them. Wikileaks' illegal, outrageous, and reckless acts have compromised our national security and put lives at risk around the world. No responsible company - whether American or foreign - should assist Wikileaks in its efforts to disseminate these stolen materials."

• TECH Amazon removes Wikileaks's content from its EC2 cloud service, but later insists it did so because the content could cause harm to people and did not belong to Wikileaks – and that it was not due to political pressure or the hacker attacks against the site.

Friday 3 December

• TECH: Wikileaks.org ceases to work for web users after everyDNS.com(*edit* not easyDNS), which had provided a free routing service translating the human-readable address into a machine-readable form, ends support.

Wikileaks shifts to a backup domain registered in Switzerland but actually hosted in Sweden, at Wikileaks.ch, though the cables are hosted in part by OVH, an internet provider in the north of France.

EveryDNS claims that the DDOS attacks against Wikileaks were disrupting its service provided to thousands of other customers. (*edit* there was a mixup, and everyDNS, not easyDNS was resonsible. EasyDNS has posted that it's "The Company That Did NOT Take Down Wikileaks" beside a cartoon character showing a thumbs up.

• POLITICS: French industry minister Eric Besson writes to internet companies warning them there will be "consequences" for any companies or organisations helping to keep WikiLeaks online in the country.

Saturday 4 December

• MONEY: PayPal, owned by US auction site eBay, permanently restricts account used by WikiLeaks due to a "violation of the PayPal Acceptable Use Policy". A spokesman said the account was suspended because "[it] cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity."
You can still donate at Commerzbank Kassel in Germnany or Landsbanki in Iceland or by post to a post office box at the University of Melbourne or at http://wikileaks.ch/support.html

• TECH: Switch, the Swiss registrar for Wikileaks.ch declines pressure from US and French authorities to remove the site or block access to it.

Sunday 5 December

• TECH: The Pirate Party in Sweden says that it has taken over the hosting of the Cablegate directory of Wikileaks after the server in France at OVH, which had been hosting the contents of the US diplomatic cables released so far, goes offline.

Monday 6 December

• MONEY: Credit card company Mastercard withdraws ability to make donations to Wikileaks. "MasterCard is taking action to ensure that WikiLeaks can no longer accept MasterCard-branded products," the credit card outfit says.

• TECH: Wikileaks' servers in Sweden attacked by distributed denial of service attack.

• MONEY: Postfinance, the Swiss postal system, strips WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange of a key fundraising tool, accusing him of lying and immediately shutting down one of his bank accounts. The bank says that Assange had "provided false information regarding his place of residence during the account opening process."
Assange had told Postfinance he lived in Geneva but could offer no proof that he was a Swiss resident, a requirement of opening such an account. Postfinance spokesman Alex Josty told The Associated Press the account was closed Monday afternoon and there would be "no criminal consequences" for misleading authorities. "That's his money, he will get his money back," Josty said. "We just close the account and that's it."

Tuesday 7 December

• MONEY: Credit card company Visa withdraws ability to make donations or payments to Wikileaks. "Visa Europe has taken action to suspend Visa payment acceptance on WikiLeaks' website pending further investigation into the nature of its business and whether it contravenes Visa operating rules," said a spokesman.

This is a most shameful episode. It represents failure at every level in the US:
The psychotic pilots were saw what they wanted to see, and either made an incompetent judgement on what they could see, or lied, or both.
* The rules of engagement were clearly misapplied and the chain of command failed to verify that a threat existed.
* The pilots then fired on civilians rendering aid to the wounded, which is a clear breach of US military code and of the Geneva convention.
* They also fired on wounded people who if they represented a threat before the were fired upon certainly didn't once shot with 30mm cannon (a weapon which incidentally should be used on materiel rather than people given that these look like exploding rounds).
* There is no proper investigation and the General lied to Reuters.
* Once the video released the White house and doubtless Pentagon behaved in a shamefully complicit way.
* Finally the US media behaved in an extraordinarily cowardly way. Why is it too shocking to show what ones troops do? If you don't want to be shocked your troops should be properly commanded and controlled?

I think this is a war crime. But who cares what I think? What should happen is that these pilots undergo a Court martial, and if found guilty serve long hard time, and if innocent (fog of war and all that) be exonerated by a court. That presumably is why there are military courts - to test difficult cases?

The bottom line here is that the US needs to sign up and recognise the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over the US military that most other countries accept, but which the US has failed to ratify, so that its soldiers and indeed the whole chain of command recognise that they are accountable for what they do. Why should US soldiers be exempt from a need to observe human writes in the same way as American Civilians? Only real accountability will prevent this sort of shameful butchery in future.

I wasn't busting your chops, I just didn't know what the black flag stood for, so I wikied it and posted it on your page.

I support your switch to pure anarchism, but don't most anarchists reject 'free-market'-y type stuff?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
What can I say? Minarchism was proving to be a specious hold out while debating statists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_symbolism#Black_flag

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Black Flag
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Black Flag may refer to:

* A flag that is black: see List of black flags
* The black flag, an international symbol in anarchist symbolism
o An alternative translation for the name of the anarchist Russian group Chernoe Znamia
o Black Flag (newspaper), an anarchist newspaper
o Czarny Sztandar (1903), a Białystok anarchist organisation
o Chernoe Znamia (1905), a Geneva anarchist newspaper
* Black Flag (insecticide), a brand of insecticide
* Black Flag (band), American hardcore punk band
* Black Flag, a ghost town in the Goldfields of Western Australia
* Black Flag Army, a militia operating around Hanoi in the late 19th century
* Black flag, one of the racing flags used to summon drivers to the pits
* Black Flag Wing Chun, a Chinese martial arts style from the province of Fujian
* A common name for the weed, Ferraria crispa
* A Black Flag Disqualification, which is when a black flag is raised at the start, anybody over the line when there is less than one minute until the start is disqualified.

What can I say? Minarchism was proving to be a specious hold out while debating statists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_symbolism#Black_flag

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Black Flag
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Black Flag may refer to:

* A flag that is black: see List of black flags
* The black flag, an international symbol in anarchist symbolism
o An alternative translation for the name of the anarchist Russian group Chernoe Znamia
o Black Flag (newspaper), an anarchist newspaper
o Czarny Sztandar (1903), a Białystok anarchist organisation
o Chernoe Znamia (1905), a Geneva anarchist newspaper
* Black Flag (insecticide), a brand of insecticide
* Black Flag (band), American hardcore punk band
* Black Flag, a ghost town in the Goldfields of Western Australia
* Black Flag Army, a militia operating around Hanoi in the late 19th century
* Black flag, one of the racing flags used to summon drivers to the pits
* Black Flag Wing Chun, a Chinese martial arts style from the province of Fujian
* A common name for the weed, Ferraria crispa
* A Black Flag Disqualification, which is when a black flag is raised at the start, anybody over the line when there is less than one minute until the start is disqualified.

Black Flag
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Black Flag may refer to:

* A flag that is black: see List of black flags
* The black flag, an international symbol in anarchist symbolism
o An alternative translation for the name of the anarchist Russian group Chernoe Znamia
o Black Flag (newspaper), an anarchist newspaper
o Czarny Sztandar (1903), a Białystok anarchist organisation
o Chernoe Znamia (1905), a Geneva anarchist newspaper
* Black Flag (insecticide), a brand of insecticide
* Black Flag (band), American hardcore punk band
* Black Flag, a ghost town in the Goldfields of Western Australia
* Black Flag Army, a militia operating around Hanoi in the late 19th century
* Black flag, one of the racing flags used to summon drivers to the pits
* Black Flag Wing Chun, a Chinese martial arts style from the province of Fujian
* A common name for the weed, Ferraria crispa
* A Black Flag Disqualification, which is when a black flag is raised at the start, anybody over the line when there is less than one minute until the start is disqualified.

^Nice copy pasta. Well then I raise you with>

Cut and paste, yes, to prevent inaccuracy, and thank you.

To an ante of coin based in fact you raise in fiat of opinion. I addressed
opinion already. Don't like facts? How about polls? Opinions were all you laid down.
.
As such, and from the website of the International Committee of the Red
Cross at:

<http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/INTRO/560?OpenDocument>

<Forum of adoption International lawyers and naval experts convened by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law, Livorno (Italy)>

<The San Remo Manual was prepared during the period 1988-1994 by a group of legal and naval experts participating in their personal capacity in a series of Round Tables convened by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law. The purpose of the Manual is to provide a contemporary restatement of international law applicable to armed conflicts at sea. The Manual includes a few provisions which might be considered progressive developments in the law but most of its provisions are considered to state the law which is currently applicable. The Manual is viewed by the participants of the Round Tables as being in many respects a modern equivalent to the Oxford Manual on the Laws of Naval War Governing the Relations Between Belligerents adopted by the Institute of International Law in 1913. A contemporary manual was considered necessary because of developments in the law since 1913 which for the most part have not been incorporated into recent treaty law, the Second Geneva Convention of 1949 being essentially limited to the protection of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked at sea.>

Good enough for the Red Cross.

Israel had and has an extant blockade...Simply, there was no attack. Termed
a Visit within the language of the manual and is evidently reflective of Maritime
Law. Israel was within their proper bounds per the above.

All the harangue amounts to posturing. Mission(s) accomplished. This, by the
way, is the only opinion I have offered.

^Nice copy pasta. Well then I raise you with this:

Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University and U.N. Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory said that the “ships that were situated in the high seas where freedom of navigation exists, according to the law of the seas” and called for those responsible to "be held criminally accountable for their wrongful acts".[181]

In a legal analysis published by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, a staff expert on international law explained that countries are not allowed to extend their sovereignty on areas outside of their coastal waters. In a zone extending 24 nautical miles (44 km) from the coast, countries have the right to inspect ships in order to enforce immigration and public health laws and regulations. In international waters, if there is reasonable suspicion of piracy or human trafficking, a country has the right to access foreign ships. If the suspicion remains, it can search the ship. Israeli soldiers have the right to defend themselves. If Israel has used force against the ships without legal justification, the crew members had the right to defend themselves.[text 2]

Robin Churchill, international law professor at the University of Dundee in Scotland, said there was no legal basis for boarding the ships as they were in international waters. [182] Ove Bring, Swedish international law professor, said that Israel had no right to take military action.[183] That was supported by Mark Klamberg at Stockholm University,[184] Hugo Tiberg, maritime law professor[185] and Geir Ulfstein, professor at maritime law at University of Oslo,[186] while Jan Egeland, director of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs said that only North Korea behaved in international waters in the same manner as Israel.[187]

Canadian scholar Michael Byers notes that the event would only be legal if the Israeli boarding were necessary and proportionate for the country's self defence. Byers believes that "the action does not appear to have been necessary in that the threat was not imminent."[188] Jason Alderwick, a maritime analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies of London, was quoted as saying that the Israeli raid did not appear to have been conducted lawfully under the convention.[189] Anthony D'Amato, international law professor at Northwestern University School of Law, argued that the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea applies to a situation in which the laws of war between states are in force. He said the laws of war do not apply in the conflict between Israel and Hamas, which isn't even a state. He said the law of the Geneva Conventions would apply.[9] Said Mahmoudi, an international law professor, said that boarding a ship on international waters, kill and capture civilians is not in line with the law.[190]

A group of Israeli lawyers, including Avigdor Feldman, petitioned the Israeli High Court charging that Israel had violated the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea by capturing the boats in international waters. [191]

Turkey's foreign minister Ahmet Davutoğlu called the raid "a grave breach of international law and constituted banditry and piracy—it was “murder” conducted by a State, without justification".[22] Prominent Turkish jurists have characterized Israel's actions as a violation of international law and a "war crime."

Turkey's deputy parliament speaker, Guldal Mumcu, said in a declaration that "[t]his attack was an open violation of United Nations rules and international law," and that "Turkey should seek justice against Israel through national and international legal authorities. The parliament expects the Turkish government to revise the political, military and economic relations with Israel, and to take effective measures."[192]
Dr. Turgut Tarhanlı, dean of the Law department of İstanbul Bilgi University,[193] cited the concept of innocent passage, under which vessels are granted safe passage through territorial waters in a manner which is not "prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security" of the state.[194] He said that the Convention on the Law of the Sea stipulates that a coastal state may consider intervention if a ship is engaged in arms and drug smuggling, the slave trade or terrorist activities. However, the case with the aid boats is totally different. They set sail in accordance with the Customs Act and are known to be carrying humanitarian aid, not weapons or ammunition. According to the Convention on the Law of the Sea, Israel was not entitled to launch a military operation against the boats and activists.[195]