What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Do you believe the 2012 Mayan Prophecy? view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - The Mayan Calendar predicts the end of time: 2012. See the trailer for 2012, opening November 13.
210 Comments
- Phylter, on 05/02/2009, -8/+84Apparently, this :"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." is too complicated for the lizard-brain people among us to understand.
- novenator, on 05/02/2009, -15/+70Very important thing to know. The UDHR is the cornerstone of unweilding human rights in the human world and something everyone should bookmark.
One thing that perked my interest:
"Article 24. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay."
I currently live in a so-called "right to work" state, and despite being with the same employer for almost a year, I still do not have sick days, vacation time, or paid holidays. I guess 'right to work' translates into right to exploit. - jkleinfeld, on 05/02/2009, -4/+28Dugg for human rights
- novenator, on 05/02/2009, -5/+27wtf are you rambling on about?
- MercyPolitics, on 05/02/2009, -3/+21The UN has more "bite" than you think. As far as your grandmother, you should really send her to the dentist...
- EarlOfLade, on 05/02/2009, -9/+27This is simply because USA still is socially a third world country.
Article 24 has been completely fulfilled since the day it was signed by my country and protected by law. The only ones protected by law in this country, are the employers. - Batfishy, on 05/02/2009, -8/+24You're an idiot shotsy.
- JamesGrimlee, on 05/02/2009, -1/+17Did you even look at the headline? It's the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Not on American soil is about as inane a comment as you could have made, but you had the courage to go ahead with it. Bravo. You do your group think proud.
- MercyPolitics, on 05/02/2009, -5/+21First of all, I don't live in a "fantasy world". Second, the US policy towards the UN has being to undermine any real say or power to act from one US administration after another. George W. Bush even had the audacity to appoint someone like Bolton to represent the US, while Bolton was making statements against the very existence of the organization. The main reason why the UN can not do more is because of America's "ideas" on how foreign affairs should be run. If you are not aware of this...you are the one living in a fantasy world.
- Midtowner, on 05/02/2009, -1/+16If we're going to hold ourselves out as the world police and be the country everyone expects to right wrongs and do good, then we have to obey the rules we agreed to obey. The U.N. Convention Against Torture has been in force since 1994.
We did sign the treaty. There are lots of treaties (the treaty forbidding the use of land mines, for example) which we have not signed for national security purposes. We are always free to repudiate treaties. We both signed the treaty and didn't repudiate it, so it's not a question of whether or not it's expedient to torture or whether or not the sons of bitches deserved it, it's a question of whether we're an honorable people. Clearly, some of us are and some of us are not.
We shouldn't expect to get it both ways -- if we're going to be the world police, then we have to play by the rules. Otherwise, we just look like douchebag cops who abuse their power. - tshawkins, on 05/02/2009, -1/+16but is operated by a nation that has signed the declaration, So you think is ok for the US to setup a "human rights free zone" and then use that as a justification for their abominable behavior.
No wonder the rest of the world is disgusted with the US, who frequently get on their high horse and lecture the rest of the world on their lack of human rights, claiming they are the land of the just and free, whilst pulling stunts like kidnapping and torture of non us-citizens on the flimsiest of excuses.
Finally without any judicial process, how do you know these people are terrorists?, many where just innocent folks snatched from the streets of their home towns by CIA and US military thugs on the word of some local informant, there has been no investigation, no verification of their supposed guilt. Years locked up and subjected to inhumane treatment and torture on the word of some local criminal supplementing their income feeding bogus information to the occupying authorities.
This is more behavior that one expects from the nazis or the worst excesses of the stalin regime, not the supposed leader of the free world. - TWGMichael, on 05/02/2009, -2/+16I grant my rights. I am sovereign.
- clvngodess, on 05/02/2009, -8/+22I second the idiot status.
- jeffiek, on 05/02/2009, -7/+17Article 1: ....are born free...
Article 2:...country or territory to which a person belongs....
Think about it. - pintomp3, on 05/02/2009, -3/+13He's been watching too much Glen Beck.
- govsucks, on 05/02/2009, -3/+13"If I'm an employer, I pay you to work. If you don't like the terms, find another employer."
BZT to complicated for collectivist victim, BZZZT
BZZT Obama save me, I'm being attacked with logic...BZZZT - novenator, on 05/02/2009, -6/+14jeffiek, *every* employer in a 'right to work' state can do this. Those that treat their employees more fairly have lower profits, which is quite an incentive to pull shenanigans like this. Plus, there are numerous states that have laws like this.
- sibbett, on 05/02/2009, -0/+8Believe it or not, some of these rights I was unaware of. Every one should have a look at this document. Whether you forgot, or just need to refresh your memory like me, give this document a read.
- inactive, on 05/02/2009, -1/+9In case you didnt know it was the US and the UK that vetoed any form of intervention in Rwanda.
- Midtowner, on 05/02/2009, -1/+9They're full of all the countries. That's the point.
Would you rather they expel everyone who doesn't share your cultural values? - inactive, on 05/02/2009, -6/+14If you are constantly reading articles about this "techniques" and getting pissed off, PLEASE
Spend 2 minutes and email your congressman
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/ ...
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml - Mothrog, on 05/03/2009, -1/+8So, interrogating is not ok but killing three pirates who were threatening the life of an innocent man is ok?
There ya go, fixed it for you. - WasabiBomb, on 05/02/2009, -3/+10That's the one... although I'm sure there are those who might state the situation a bit less one-sidedly as you. However, I'm a bit confused as to how THAT situation somehow invalidates the UDHR. I'm sure you'll draw us a map, though, right?
- WasabiBomb, on 05/02/2009, -4/+11I wonder how you can be so stupid, and yet remember how to breathe?
- TWGMichael, on 05/02/2009, -0/+7ta da, you already have these rights. Go out and enjoy them. You don't need anyone to confirm these powers for you, you need only EXERCISE THEM.
- TWGMichael, on 05/02/2009, -3/+10And no one should. Look more closely at the voluminous writing coming out of UN organizations. For each happy document that parrots the US Constitution, there are a dozen more that restrict freedom and treat citizens as serfs.
The United Nations is not accountable to any citizen or group, it is responsible to the nation states that feed it and allow it to breathe with money. No citizen of /any/ nation state can elect a UN official. UN officials are a proxy for the officials that already ignore your sovereignty. - Phylter, on 05/02/2009, -4/+10And here you go folks! The lizard brain responds! Blowing people to bits using flying robots is just dandy!
What the ***** would you know of "humane"? Your words prove what the word "ghoul" means. - lostlyrics, on 05/03/2009, -0/+5it's our highest priority to enforce un-
resolutions in iraq - awol.dubya bush
http://jk.lostlyrics.eu/iraqass.jpg
not to mention who bribed un-votes
PS the most significant zero is not in your handle - Jordan117, on 05/02/2009, -2/+8I really like this video rendering of it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTlrSYbCbHE - mikelieman, on 05/03/2009, -0/+6How do you know they're Terrorists if they haven't had a trial?
- AgeofMastery, on 05/02/2009, -4/+10It's the Alex Jones brigade...
- MercyPolitics, on 05/02/2009, -1/+7Excellent points. I think, we shouldn't tolerate any exception in abiding to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at all.
- Doxocopa, on 05/02/2009, -9/+15When I saw Mercy’ s submission on Dalai-Lama. I went to wikipedia to think what would be his standing on the abortion issue. Dalai’s oriental mind is straightforward: “ it is a killing”, although he admits that it can be done upon acceptably personal circumstances… but westerners are truly euphemism prone, like “Personal Health problem”.
I found it quite interesting, because it shows on what grounds this debate should be held: is the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) open to restrictions? –This is really where the debate lies: if there are kinds of human beings that should have their right to Physical and Moral Integrity taken away and kept hostage to third parties decisions or contextual circunstances…
Allow me to draw a comparison with the torture issue. What is the abortion bill about in the end? – It allows a special precinct to be declared “free” of the UDHR: the woman womb.
Now, are there any other restrictions to this particular UDHR right to Life?
–Yes, the first ever in the Western Society was the Death Penalty; and
–we are on the verge of allowing a third restriction: torture under certain “exceptions”!
What did the Bush Administration do? – It declared a particular precinct/area in the island of Cuba free of the UDHR, this time not because of “Personal Health or Reproductive Rights”, but on grounds of “National Security”… euphemisms once again are plenty (Special Interrogatory Techniques, Waterboarding, etc).
My point is: where is the “rationale” to admit some exceptions, and not other people own “desired”? … this is the ultimate conundrum of the true “dictatorship of relativism” we live in today! - Don’t you see? – The first ever restriction of UDHR rights, just set the precedent for issuing others, and now torture opponents are experiencing the same phenomenon that pro-lifers experienced with the arguments used to allow abortion … it started for some special cases – unwanted pregnancy, rape, etc – just like the Post is saying that in at least two situations torture would be welcome. The future is telling: the door will be wide opened for torture if this is allowed to pass without prosecution… just alike abortion, torture will be decriminalized, you may bet; at first to some restrictive case, latter on riding wide opening. Now, the question arises, what will be the next future restrictions allowed to the UDHR?
A society that allows the slightest exception on fundamental rights will end up in tyranny, because as George Orwell bluntly stated on “Animal Farm”: “some animals are more equal than others”! - Phylter, on 05/03/2009, -2/+7Project much? Basement commando perhaps... I served six years in the Air Force, honorably discharged upon contract expiration. One day, helped retrieve the remains of a downed pilot, all 35 pounds of him that could be found. One thing I'm not, is a ghoul.
The Spanish Inquisition would hire you in a heartbeat. However, they no longer exist, just vestigial remains such as yourself, who hate everyone and everything, even yourself. - AndrewDB, on 05/02/2009, -0/+5PENAL AND DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS
From The Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (which -everyone- should read!).
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
I. General provisions
Article 82
A prisoner of war shall be subject to the laws, regulations and orders in force in the armed forces of the Detaining Power; the Detaining Power shall be justified in taking judicial or disciplinary measures in respect of any offence committed by a prisoner of war against such laws, regulations or orders. However, no proceedings or punishments contrary to the provisions of this Chapter shall be allowed.
If any law, regulation or order of the Detaining Power shall declare acts committed by a prisoner of war to be punishable, whereas the same acts would not be punishable if committed by a member of the forces of the Detaining Power, such acts shall entail disciplinary punishments only.
Article 83
In deciding whether proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by a prisoner of war shall be judicial or disciplinary, the Detaining Power shall ensure that the competent authorities exercise the greatest leniency and adopt, wherever possible, disciplinary rather than judicial measures.
Article 84
A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.
In no circumstances whatever shall a prisoner of war be tried by a court of any kind which does not offer the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality as generally recognized, and, in particular, the procedure of which does not afford the accused the rights and means of defence provided for in Article 105.
Article 85
Prisoners of war prosecuted under the laws of the Detaining Power for acts committed prior to capture shall retain, even if convicted, the benefits of the present Convention.
Article 86
No prisoner of war may be punished more than once for the same act, or on the same charge.
Article 87
Prisoners of war may not be sentenced by the military authorities and courts of the Detaining Power to any penalties except those provided for in respect of members of the armed forces of the said Power who have committed the same acts.
When fixing the penalty, the courts or authorities of the Detaining Power shall take into consideration, to the widest extent possible, the fact that the accused, not being a national of the Detaining Power, is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance, and that he is in its power as the result of circumstances independent of his own will. The said courts or authorities shall be at liberty to reduce the penalty provided for the violation of which the prisoner of war is accused, and shall therefore not be bound to apply the minimum penalty prescribed.
Collective punishment for individual acts, corporal punishments, imprisonment in premises without daylight and, in general, any form of torture or cruelty, are forbidden.
No prisoner of war may be deprived of his rank by the Detaining Power, or prevented from wearing his badges.
Article 88
Officers, non-commissioned officers and men who are prisoners of war undergoing a disciplinary or judicial punishment, shall not be subjected to more severe treatment than that applied in respect of the same punishment to members of the armed forces of the Detaining Power of equivalent rank.
A woman prisoner of war shall not be awarded or sentenced to a punishment more severe, or treated whilst undergoing punishment more severely, than a woman member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power dealt with for a similar offence.
In no case may a woman prisoner of war be awarded or sentenced to a punishment more severe, or treated whilst undergoing punishment more severely, than a male member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power dealt with for a similar offence.
Prisoners of war who have served disciplinary or judicial sentences may not be treated differently from other prisoners of war. - novenator, on 05/02/2009, -1/+6so who exactly will enforce human rights?
- Shuster, on 05/02/2009, -0/+5Choosing to work, choosing which ideals to uphold, etc. are not forms of slavery. They are an expression of our freedom to make decisions, enter into contracts and do what we will with our mind, body and time. Civilization and society are completely different things than government. Slavery is when the decision is taken away from you. When you are owned or forced into labor. Forced to work and give the fruits of your labor to someone else. Just because you have to make a decision for one thing over another doesn't make you a slave. Nothing is free. Everything has an opportunity cost.
TANSTAAFL! - kd1s, on 05/02/2009, -1/+6Article 2 is interesting. It says "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind..." In other words they demonstrate examples but those aren't the limits.
It reads a hell of a lot like the U.S. Constitution though. - novenator, on 05/02/2009, -4/+9I work in a profession where the majority of us go project to project. Having an employer for more than 2 months at a time is a rarity. I know it's a stretch to say this violates the UDHR, it just perked my interest.
My question to you is, what's wrong with the document? How exactly is it failed or what exactly is wrong with human rights? - inactive, on 05/02/2009, -9/+14Damn you UN for trying to stand for human rights!
/s - BoboJones, on 05/02/2009, -4/+9> I wonder if they intend to use the swine flu hoax to take away our rights?
Yes. We're respectfully requesting that you forfeit your right to post on Digg. - joshblufs, on 05/02/2009, -0/+5unweilding? was this a typo for unyielding?
- kingcam, on 05/02/2009, -0/+5Except you can't because we have judges that decide these things.
- ProfBagelwood, on 05/02/2009, -4/+9That's an unrealistically simplistic perspective, I'm afraid. As depressing as it is, a lot of people have nothing but false choices when it comes to living their lives.
"No, you don't have to sign our contract. But we know that you won't find another job here, and we know that you can't afford to move away either. So go ahead and please take your time, because we know you don't have the money to last for too long, which means that the longer you wait, the more desperate you'll be, which in turn means that we'll be able to make the contract even worse for you when you realize you can't wait any longer."
Companies can be pretty ruthless like that. One of the main reasons for democracy's existence is so that the people can defend themselves from this kind of exploitation and abuse. - inactive, on 05/02/2009, -0/+5I love getting negative digs, when all I did was post a link to writing your congressmen... What? Do you dig downers not like constituents expressing their opinions to their congressmen?
So sad that you don't love America. - Midtowner, on 05/02/2009, -3/+8How is a supernational organization even capable of being socialist?
- andrew1193, on 05/02/2009, -7/+12""Article 24. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.""
If a "right" requires the expense of others, it is not a right.
If I'm an employer, I pay you to work. If you don't like the terms, find another employer. - kingcam, on 05/02/2009, -0/+5Apperently some people in America just never understood at famous Nietzsche quote:
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
Arguing that we have to torture because the terrorists will do harm to us if we don't is like resorting to terror tactics in order to defeat the terrorists. - 8FoldPath, on 05/02/2009, -1/+6Human rights transcend sovereign laws. That's the point of "human" rights.
- novenator, on 05/02/2009, -1/+5yep, my bad.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 217 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 