There are no "natural laws", only laws we consider universal. They are not divine, they are not in-alienable in other ways than the way we uphold them. Some people do not consider them particularly important - see muslim nations and others.

Just because we think they are super important, doesn't mean anything other than just that - we think they are important.

Laws like good and evil are human constructs.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202462704567&High_Court_Refuses_to_Hear_Rendition_Case

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/11/03/arar

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/02/28/al_haramain

Take a good look around people. Your rights don't mean jack shit especially since the civil case against the United States government for the extraordinary rendition of one, Maher Arar. Glenn Greenwald did a piece on it. Something about the Judicial branch said they couldn't review anything the Executive Branch did because of National Security. Well fuck me if Checks and Balances went out the window.

I needed something to *promote. This video is it.

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, June 14th, 2010 11:30am PDT - promote requested by NordlichReiter.

@gwiz665, I understand you have a problem with "inalienable" or "natural" rights because people tend to think they come from a god, but god didn't always mean exclusively a personal god. Read the God Delusion, Dawkins writes about how god meant what creates you, whether that be something thought to be personal or natural. Einstein talked of a natural god being the creator of the universe, and he certainly wasn't talking about a man with a white beard!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights

I understand that men and manmade constructs like government may want to take natural rights away, but they're a part of you and no man or manmade construct should take them away: your right to life, speech, beliefs, expression, self-preservation, etc.

I'll write the sequel - Lies Judge Napolitano Has Told You. Free speech was saved when the DC Circuit struck down net neutrality? Seriously? Does he think Roosevelt should have kept his no foreign wars promise after Pearl Harbor? What a moron.

>> ^mongoosemonk:
I'll write the sequel - Lies Judge Napolitano Has Told You. Free speech was saved when the DC Circuit struck down net neutrality? Seriously? Does he think Roosevelt should have kept his no foreign wars promise after Pearl Harbor? What a moron.


Did we not put sanctions Japan before that attack? Not justifying the attack, just pointing out that blockades, sanctions, carpet bombings, etcetera are acts of war...