Slashdot Mirror

Think.

Drinking a beer is absolutely the most important right that can be had. My God, the restictions placed on that fundamental right here in the US are astounding!

God knows nothing bad ever happens in Spain.

I'll take my constitutional rights, for a conservative stance on alchohol, thank you.

I'm sure that'll be quite a consolation to the suspect as he's being tortured by agents of the Crown.

refusing to obey government censorship (in places like China) by hacking through their censors is, in my mind, is a very noble thing.

To be consistent with Thoreau's ideas on civil disobedience, the hacker would be have to announce his actions to the authorities and be prepared to go to jail.

As political tactics, Thoreau's ideas may not be so effective in China. Considering the treatment of the Falun Gong and other religious groups, appeals to the conscience of the Chinese authorities are likely to be in vain. They don't have any.

After Tianamen Square no one needs to lecture the Chinese on civil disobedience or the consequences thereof.

Yeah, you're right. Amnesty International is a bunch of whiners. Let's see what they're bringing attention to today:

- Endemic rape of women in Kenya
- Undemocratic elections in Zimbabwe.
- Curtailed freedom of expression in Jordan.

What a pack of losers.

-Bruce

Yeah, you're right. Amnesty International is a bunch of whiners. Let's see what they're bringing attention to today:

- Endemic rape of women in Kenya
- Undemocratic elections in Zimbabwe.
- Curtailed freedom of expression in Jordan.

What a pack of losers.

-Bruce

Yeah, you're right. Amnesty International is a bunch of whiners. Let's see what they're bringing attention to today:

- Endemic rape of women in Kenya
- Undemocratic elections in Zimbabwe.
- Curtailed freedom of expression in Jordan.

What a pack of losers.

-Bruce

Please do not mis-interpret the statistics indicating that Americans of Asian ancestry are most likely to use the Internet. Due to immigration and, specifically, the hordes of Chinese fighting with tooth and nail to enter the United States of America (USA), the bulk of Americans of Asian ancestry are Chinese. They were not born here. They were born overseas.

These Chinese have flooded into engineering and business schools at American universities. So, naturally, they would be more inclined to use the Internet than other "ethnic" groups.

This skew in the statistics should not be taken as a sign of superiority. Specifically, this skew should not be taken as supporting the "model minority" myth.

Whatever positive attribute might be implied by Chinese "superiority" in using the Internet is wiped out many times over by the many other negative attributes. For example, many of you readers are currently college students. Just visit a local meeting of Amnesty International . While your engineering classes are flooded with Chinese, there will be virtually no Chinese faces at the local meeting of Amnesty International. The Chinese excel at engineering concepts like network connectivity but refuse to grasp basic concepts of humanity.

As another example, most of you are familiar with hi-tech Taiwan. The Chinese students in Taiwan consistently outperform American students on tests of mathematics and science. Indeed, the typical Chinese student is more likely to understand and to use the Internet than the typical American student.

Yet, virtually no American student would admire the Nazis. By constrast, the Chinese (from mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong) have long admired Hitler and his Nazi ideals.

1. According to "DPP's Hitler ad creates stir [taipeitimes.com]", Chinese use Hitler to inspire young people in Taiwan.
2. "Fascination with Nazis is shameful for Taiwan [taipeitimes.com]" reports on the popularity of Nazism among Chinese in Taiwan.
3. "Offending restaurant decor given the axe [taipeitimes.com]" notes that some Chinese use victims of the Jewish holocaust to entice other Chinese to eat at their restaurant. As the Chinese diners at the restaurant finish their dinners, they calmly enjoy watching the scenes of suffering/dying Jewish people.
4. "'Hitler' heater ads draw fire from all quarters [taipeitimes.com]" reports how Chinese use a picture of Hitler to sell a heater in Taiwan.

So, my point is the following. The statistic (in the original SlashDot article) claiming that Americans of Asian ancestry use the Internet at a higher rate than other Americans need not warrant much concern.

Amnesty International uses PGP to protect their people (e.g. witnesses, reporters, etc.) from abusive governments. If the documents they sent could be decoded by these governments, the corrospondents referred to in the documents would be tortured and killed. Of course, while this is relatively high-profile, they are a non-profit organization and therefore can use the free version, so NAI doesn't get any money from them.

The trouble is that the Chinese never expressed any moral reservations about human cloning. There was no debate. They plunged headlong into cloning human beings. By contrast, in the United States of America, we debated (at length) the issue of cloning human beings. Religious and political figures weighed into the issue with their opinions. There was and still is much handwringing in the United States. I very much admire a society where morality and conscience take such prominence in every action that we do. That, in a few sentences, is the difference between us Westerners and the Chinese. Sure. Some Westerners may support human cloning, but they pursue it after weighing the serious moral issues.

I have little doubt that hordes of Chinese will write messages into this message board, supporting human cloning. After all, most Chinese support the policies of Beijing (i. e. the same Beijing that have tortured thousands of Tibetans). These very same Chinese will fight with tooth and nail to flee to or stay in the United States of America.

These Chinese are a detriment to American society and, in general, Western society (including Japan).

Just look at these Chinese from Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong. These Chinese from Hong Kong refused to support an independent Republic of Hong Kong and, indeed, praised the unification of China and Hong Kong; meanwhile, these same Chinese fight with tooth and nail to stay in the United States.

As a society, we are better than anything that the Chinese can become. The Chinese are morally bankrupt. Check the proof at Amnesty International or CNN . In fact, read "Kill and cull: China rejects doctor's testimony".

By the way, most Chinese consider Amnesty International to be a CIA-run operation. The Chinese simply cannot believe that just plain folks like us -- housewives, doctors, engineers, artists, etc. -- would give their time to volunteer in Amnesty International. The Chinese simply cannot believe this fact because in their own Chinese society, most people are morally bankrupt.

The trouble is that the Chinese never expressed any moral reservations about human cloning. There was no debate. They plunged headlong into cloning human beings. By contrast, in the United States of America, we debated (at length) the issue of cloning human beings. Religious and political figures weighed into the issue with their opinions. There was and still is much handwringing. I very much admire a society where morality and conscience take such prominence in every action that we do. That, in a few sentences, is the difference between us Westerners and the Chinese. Sure. Some Westerners may support human cloning, but they pursue it after weighing the serious moral issues.

I have little doubt that hordes of Chinese will write messages into this message board, supporting human cloning. After all, most Chinese support the policies of Beijing (i. e. the same Beijing that have tortured thousands of Tibetans). These very same Chinese will fight with tooth and nail to flee to or stay in the United States of America.

These Chinese are a detriment to American society and, in general, Western society (including Japan).

Just look at these Chinese from Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong. These Chinese from Hong Kong refused to support an independent Republic of Hong Kong and, indeed, praised the unification of China and Hong Kong; meanwhile, these same Chinese fight with tooth and nail to stay in the United States.

As a society, we are better than anything that the Chinese can become. The Chinese are morally bankrupt. Check the proof at Amnesty International or CNN . In fact, read "Kill and cull: China rejects doctor's testimony".

By the way, most Chinese consider Amnesty International to be a CIA-run operation. The Chinese simply cannot believe that just plain folks like us -- housewives, doctors, engineers, artists, etc. -- would give their time to volunteer in Amnesty International. The Chinese simply cannot believe this fact because in their own Chinese society, most people are morally bankrupt.

Frankly, I do not want Americans to envy the Chinese. Even if the Chinese GDP exceeds the American GDP, the Chinese will still flee to the United States. Look at Taiwan. Look at Singapore. When these Chinese reach our shores, they do exactly what they have always done. They will praise their morally bankrupt Chinese culture and will become livid when we Americans criticize it; meanwhile, these Chinese will fight with tooth and nail to stay in the United States.

Just look at these Chinese from Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong. These Chinese from Hong Kong refused to support an independent Republic of Hong Kong and, indeed, praised the unification of China and Hong Kong; meanwhile, these same Chinese fight with tooth and nail to stay in the United States.

As a society, we are better than anything that the Chinese can become. The Chinese are morally bankrupt. Check the proof at Amnesty International or CNN . In fact, read "Kill and cull: China rejects doctor's testimony".

By the way, most Chinese consider Amnesty International to be a CIA-run operation. The Chinese simply cannot believe that just plain folks like us -- housewives, doctors, engineers, artists, etc. -- would give their time to volunteer in Amnesty International. The Chinese simply cannot believe this fact because in their own Chinese society, most people are morally bankrupt.

Allow me to help a Chinese like yourself. Check the proof at Amnesty International or CNN . In fact, read "Kill and cull: China rejects doctor's testimony".

By the way, most Chinese consider Amnesty International to be a CIA-run operation. The Chinese simply cannot believe that just plain folks like us -- housewives, doctors, engineers, artists, etc. -- would give their time to volunteer in Amnesty International. The Chinese simply cannot believe this fact because in their own Chinese society, most people are morally bankrupt.

Here we have classic Chinese hypocrisy. The Chinese (where "Chinese" means Chinese people, not merely the Chinese government) want us Americans to lift the blocks hindering the flow of e-mail. Yet, these very Chinese fully support censorship. Specifically, these Chinese support the blocks hindering access to the web sites of Amnesty International , CNN , "Washington Post", etc.

The pro-censorship, anti-human-rights bent of most Chinese is fairly easy to spot if you follow the news regularly. For example, most Chinese in Hong Kong support the return of Hong Kong to mainland China. A CNN/Time survey showed, in fact, that 60% of the Chinese in Hong Kong support the return of Hong Kong to mainland China. (reference: "Poll: Hong Kong residents optimistic") While East Timorese fought and died for independence from the oppressive Indonesian government, the Chinese in Hong Kong cheered the mainland Chinese government.

Here's another fact. Many of you are college students. At your university, attend your local meeting of Amnesty International. The engineering and business schools will have plenty of Chinese people, but there will be virtually _NO_ Chinese faces in a meeting of Amnesty International. Chinese (and other Orientals) are over-represented in engineering and business schools, but they are under-represented in meetings of Amnesty International. Do you doubt what I say? I challenge you to disprove me. Attend that meeting of Amnesty International. I dare you.

The bottom line is this. Ignore the complaints from the Chinese on the matter of our attempts to block e-mail spam from China (which, by the way, is the software piracy capital of the world).

You would be subject to UK law, which sadly, has even less protection for you. For example, Greg Palast, a respected UK journalist published researched and factual articles in the Observer about Barricks, the gold mining company, and their unsavory activities in Africa, including allegations of murder by Anmesty International.

Barricks successfully sued the paper, so you can't actually read the articles in the UK, even though those same articles are 100% protected by US libel laws.

And you think this doesn't happen in America? Brings to mind the old Botswanan idiom: "The gorilla cannot see how ugly his sunken eyes are."

For accounts of rape, torture and abuse in American prisons, you can start with Amnesty International, then move on to Human Rights Watch (whose home page as I type this screams "Stop the Death Penalty in the USA") which currently features a report entitled Nowhere to Hide detailing the abusive conditions in women's prisons in Michigan, amongst at least a dozen other articles on human rights abuses in the American penal system.

The PRC is far from perfect. I've never claimed otherwise. What really raises my hackles, however, is this perception by Americans that they are somehow superior to everyone else. Americans would get along much better with the rest of the world if they were start by admitting that all of us have a long way to go.

The article to which I am responding is written by a pro-China Chinese

1. Read my post before replying to it. If you had, you'd have noticed that I specifically denied both your assertions: that I am pro-China, and that I am Chinese. I am, in fact, neither.

2. Don't post AC. Do you have the courage to stick by your opinions when your name's attached to them?

3. I especially invite you to spend a year with the Taiwanese.

* The Chinese from "poor, little, scared" Taiwan have invested more than $50 billion into more than 50,000 businesses in mainland China.

You might want to take a closer look at home before pointing fingers. China is one of America's largest trading partners, and the fastest growing American export market. 60% of all American shoe imports, for example, come from China. Kodak owns more than half the film market in China. The largest soft drink company in China is Coca-Cola (15 times larger than its nearest competitor). KFC and McDonald's dominate the Chinese fast food industry. The US Department of Commerce estimated that in 1999 U.S. corporate assets in China and Hong Kong were worth $81 billion (compared to $30 billion for all of Eastern Europe), with sales of $66 billion and profits of $3 billion. Of the 500 largest American corporations, more than half have investments in China.

Taiwan ... investments continue to grow at double-digit rates.

As do American. Through the 1990s, US-to-China exports increased by over 16% on average annually. The first five months of 2001 alone were up 20.9% over the year previous.

According to Amnesty International, China is a society that does not honor human rights.

And have you taken a look at what AI says about America? Didn't think so. You could start with its website at www.amnesty.org.

As I have already stated, I'm am neither Chinese, nor a supporter of the Chinese government. I am, however, an opponent of bigotry where I see it, including anonymous Slashdot posts.

Most Chinese in Taiwan support mainland China.

Your knowledge of the Taiwanese is almost laughably ignorant. It was, I suppose, all these "pro-China" Chinese in Taiwan who voted out the pro-reunification Kuomingdong merely on suspicion of its having ties with Beijing. It was these "pro-China" Taiwanese who in the last three Taiwanese elections elected the most independence-minded candidates (just ask Beijing what it thinks of Chen Shui-bian, or the DPP, or Annette Wu). The reason Beijing refuses to negotiate with Taipei is precisely because Taipei refuses to accept "one China" as a precondition for talks.

I'll give you credit for an active imagination, if little else.

• You can blow people apart with laser weapons, according to international law, but you can't blind them. It is indeed a strange world we live in

Not really. The Geneva Convention is indeed designed to make war hard. Maiming and crippling is much more efficient than killing, as it puts a huge strain on your enemy's economy. But follow that argument, and you soon realise that chemical and biological weapons are the most efficient of all. You'l notice that this is the method of attack that we most fear will be used against ourselves.

And so the Geneva Convention lays down the ways that civilised people should kill each other. It's ludicruous, it's horrendous, but it's entirely sensible.

And as others have pointed out here and elsewhere, the Geneva Convention is only as binding as we make it. We can ignore it, but if we do, we declare ourselves to be uncivilised, and should expect to be put down like barbaric rabid dogs. If that sounds like harsh rhetoric, it's pretty much the language that's coming out of Washington right now. "They started it," is a pretty poor schoolyard grade excuse for acting like animals, and if anyone is any doubt that the US government is bothering to conform with the Geneva Convention, they should really do some reading.

Laser gunships are a neat toy and all, but I don't think they're going to solve our major problem, which is that a couple of billion people really don't like our foreign policies, specifically our passion for spending billions of dollars on projecting power across the globe. Weapons like this necessitate their own use. Hey ho.

The EU? Surely you're referring to the only area in the world to *have* rights legally protected, as opposed to the US which is at the top of Amnesty International's list of human-rights abusers.



Yes, that means that you kill more people than Burma does. Yes, that means you kill children, and yet still consider yourself the "free world"

7) if/when we encounter alien life, should they be protected by "human rights" law? (a) yes (b) no (c) yes, but only to the same extent as the other non-citizens.

The fact that this is +4 insightful is probably the straw that broke the camels back for me and /.

These people are supposedly fleeing for their lives from places like *Turkey* (UK travel agents sell package cruise holidays to Turkey for f***'s sake )

Is there any logic here? UK Travel agents will ship you anywhere for cash. China! Random african countries! Russia! Israel! You think none of these places abuse human rights enough for anyone to be fleeing their life? Please. As for turkey read this

Just ask any UK citizen which system they think is better, Australia's or their own.

The UK's. And I'm not the only one, even if we are a minority.

Yes, that is correct. What is also correct is that under the Geneva convention, prisoners of war must be treated humanely, among other rights.

How about violating human rights? 1/100 people in the US are in prison, this rises to 1/30 for black people. They are the only "civilised" country to kill people, they've just introduced extra-judicial "summary courts", they've just imprisoned tens of people on no charge, without even disclosing who or why, and Amnesty International has a list as long as your arm of other human rights violations in the USA.

And don't forget they refused to overturn the convictions of those defended by a "constistantly unconscious" lawyer. Who needs 'em to be awake anyway? They're only defending poor people.

(p.s. This isn't an anti-american rant, just anti-american-law.)

But if I had any money they would certainly be donated to the Xiph.org Foundation

Free Software is certainly a good thing, and a worthy cause, but open formats for exchange of ideas, thoughs and arts is even more important. Without it, me may end up in a situation where an Evil Corp[tm] can control what you can say.

Ok, you're starting to talk about higher laws being required to revoke bad laws. How about this: the International Convention on Human Rights :

• Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association
• Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
• No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

In other words, the judge ought to defend their right to be part of a trade union, and to protect the right of that trade union to stand-up for their members

Unfortunately, the US has an extremist far-right government, who considers anyone standing up for the rights of workers to be somehow communist (read sub-human), hence the reason they choose to ignore international human-rights law (see Amnesty International's page on the US for more examples)

Make no mistake, the Taliban is a really vile group of people who are as bad as they are made out to be. But also don't make the mistake of thinking that the U.S. government would have cared about them, their treatment of their citizens or Afghanistan in general if it weren't for 9/11.

Please mod parent up. It just isn't right to rate this as flamebait.
Don't believe me? Just take a better look at some of our allies in the war against terrorism.

Back when I ran a chapter of Amnesty International, we would get information about the Taliban all the time. Here's a link to Amnesty's site. I believe you can find info on Afganistan on the front page.

This is one of those situations when the media doesn't have to make up horror stories.

Note: This report covers events from January 1 to December 31 of 2000. By all accounts, the 2001 report will not be much different.

Well the flow of responses is as predicted, I expected this would be flamebait.
...less flamebait than ignorant troll. Regardless, I felt the need to respond to a few of your statements throughout this thread.

Starting with this post:
The general consensus seems to be
GOVERNMENT == BAD
Personal rights to do anything electronically and have it hidden and undecipherable == GOOD

This country was founded on distrust of government. There was much debate over the ordering of the first few amendments, ie. the importance of unrestricted speech, etc. vs. right to bear arms - to allow the people to defend themselves against any entity, including their own government, if deemed necessary. The Bill of Rights has this distrust as a common theme, since its authors were fighting to escape government gone bad, and recognized that that is, unfortunately, what happens.

Related statements from two posts:
Wake up.
You people are not helping. If you want to hold onto reasonable rights, you have to offer reasonable, effective alternatives that still allow us stop and catch the bad guys.

I keep saying it over and over and no one responds. Will you give up anything to the government that will allow some reasonable means of assuring security? What are the alternatives?

Everyone else keeps saying it over and over, and you're just not paying attention. The liberties (which you refuse to even recognize) you're asking people to give up have not been shown to be a reasonable means of assuring security. Once that's been established, then the issue of giving up essential liberties can be addressed. I doubt that you could convince me that making encryption (or much else) illegal, or restricted so as to be useless, will deter the "bad guys" in the least.

More drivel, in case anyone missed it:
Quit inventing rights that didn't exist 200 years ago, and then pretending we are turning into Nazis if we have to modify them.

One AC appropriately posted the 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Basically, I think there's a crucial point here that you're missing. People have rights by default, governments (ours at least, as defined by the Constitution) do not. I'll try to make this simple: Anonymity- and anything else that's been brought up- is a right, because there's no reason for it not to be. Terrorists, Communists, or any other Boogeyman du jour are not now, never were, and never will be enough reason to trump that.

Crap, the sequel:
I choose not to believe the US government is essentially evil. I choose to believe the US government has improved its stance on human rights in general, effectively and steadily over the last 200 years. I choose to believe there are truly evil men out there that would do America harm.

... and I choose to believe you're wrong, as I hope anyone else would too. The US government is not essentially evil, if you define its essentials to be the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and other such things. There are evil men seeking to do the US harm, and they are those in our government that are opportunistically using the events of the 11th of September as an excuse to push their agenda of taking away the rights of the people and giving unnecessary and excessive rights to the government. Power corrupts. Hence the distrust of government in the Bill of Rights. Speaking of human rights, it may be interesting to read things like this instead of USA Today.

Bah. I probably had more to say that slipped my mind while writing this. Oh well. I think I got across the point that I strongly oppose any attempts to undermine what this country was founded on (not necessarily what it's become) and those who defend them. It's been said often enough, but it bears repeating: If the attacks were an attack on freedom, then restricting the rights of the people is the worst course of action as it represents an attack on freedom from within.

No; it's about adult content. People think that certain extreme political viewpoints are not suitable for children. Or the information that contraception and abortion are both legal in the US - Planned Parenthood. Or any sex-oriented words even if the context is non-sexual - i.e. the pseudo-crimes of profanity, obscenity etc. This just fucking ridiculous! There. Slashdot has (and always has had) "adult content".

There are actually cretins, morons and imbeciles who believe that the views of organisations like the ACLU and Amnesty International are "adult content" and they don't want their kids exposed to it until they've completed their brainwashing sessions. If these morons can't control their own children they certainly shouldn't be allowed to control the whole nation.

Q. Will instituting some sort of access trail or ID verification for non-mainstream political web sites restrict their free speech rights? Will this kind of legislation harm minors because they were not allowed to get information about contraception without proof of ID?
A. You bet your ass it will.

Is Amnesty International considered a reliable/unbiased source? (and if not, why not and what is?)

You can find their summary of what's going on in Israel - covering both sides of the struggle - here. It makes pretty grim reading.

Is Amnesty International considered a reliable/unbiased source? (and if not, why not and what is?)

You can find their summary of what's going on in Israel - covering both sides of the struggle - here. It makes pretty grim reading.

Israel/Occupied Territories: Israel shows reckless disregard for human life

ISRAEL AND THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES: UNITED NATIONS CALLS FOR HALT TO TORTURE

CAT: ISRAEL CONTINUES TO DEFY THE COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE

ISRAEL: Human Rights Abuses Affecting Trafficked Women in Isreal's Sex Industry

An article on slave trafficking in Israel, from the Jerusalem Post

Google search results for "human rights" + israel" (have reading the 281,000 results)

If zionist moderators once again try to silence me, well, I tried.

I could speculate endlessly about why the US is so intent on supporting Israel, and why the US ignores Israeli human rights abuses that would shame even North Korea. But, I really don't know. I am truly puzzled.

Israel/Occupied Territories: Israel shows reckless disregard for human life

ISRAEL AND THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES: UNITED NATIONS CALLS FOR HALT TO TORTURE

CAT: ISRAEL CONTINUES TO DEFY THE COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE

ISRAEL: Human Rights Abuses Affecting Trafficked Women in Isreal's Sex Industry

An article on slave trafficking in Israel, from the Jerusalem Post

Google search results for "human rights" + israel" (have reading the 281,000 results)

If zionist moderators once again try to silence me, well, I tried.

I could speculate endlessly about why the US is so intent on supporting Israel, and why the US ignores Israeli human rights abuses that would shame even North Korea. But, I really don't know. I am truly puzzled.

Israel/Occupied Territories: Israel shows reckless disregard for human life

ISRAEL AND THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES: UNITED NATIONS CALLS FOR HALT TO TORTURE

CAT: ISRAEL CONTINUES TO DEFY THE COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE

ISRAEL: Human Rights Abuses Affecting Trafficked Women in Isreal's Sex Industry

An article on slave trafficking in Israel, from the Jerusalem Post

Google search results for "human rights" + israel" (have reading the 281,000 results)

If zionist moderators once again try to silence me, well, I tried.

I could speculate endlessly about why the US is so intent on supporting Israel, and why the US ignores Israeli human rights abuses that would shame even North Korea. But, I really don't know. I am truly puzzled.

Israel/Occupied Territories: Israel shows reckless disregard for human life

ISRAEL AND THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES: UNITED NATIONS CALLS FOR HALT TO TORTURE

CAT: ISRAEL CONTINUES TO DEFY THE COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE

ISRAEL: Human Rights Abuses Affecting Trafficked Women in Isreal's Sex Industry

An article on slave trafficking in Israel, from the Jerusalem Post

Google search results for "human rights" + israel" (have reading the 281,000 results)

If zionist moderators once again try to silence me, well, I tried.

I could speculate endlessly about why the US is so intent on supporting Israel, and why the US ignores Israeli human rights abuses that would shame even North Korea. But, I really don't know. I am truly puzzled.

Green bombs? No way: When you blow things up, you are causing destruction. It can't be environmentally friendly in any way. War is the most destructive thing you can do, also to the environment.

I was very much opposed to the bombing, and it is very clear that the bombing was flawed, but the DU panic is taking the focus away from the main point: That war is unacceptable as a political means. Or as the Russell-Einstein manifesto says "shall mankind renounce war?". I'm also a pacifist and a physicist.

You know, I'm not a conspiracy buff, but I couldn't help notice that the panic took off just after Amnesty published a very critical report and many other reports were made that there hasn't really been any improvement in the region. Before that, it was only a few conspiracy buffs and a well known swindler who favoured the idea.

If there was a conspiracy here, well, you've seen "Wag the dog", so imagine somebody getting upset about it, and decides to take attention away from the fact that the bombing was all flawed:

Senior-Man-in-Dark-suit: OK, Amnesty and several others are pointing out that we broke human rights, and that the campaign in Serbia was flawed. The President has asked us to take the attention away from that fact. Any ideas?

Junior-man-in-Dark-suit: Well, sir, there is this depleted uranium, that some conspiracy buffs have been talking about...

SMIDS: So, were we using it?

JMIDS: Of course, this stuff is really old.

SMIDS: So, what's the deal?

JMIDS: It's uranium, sir. People go nuts every time they hear about uranium.

SMIDS: Right. So, what are scientists saying about this?

JMIDS: They're all very clear, DU has hardly any effect.

SMIDS: Are you sure about that? You know, if we put out a panic about this, and it turns out to have been dangerous, we're in deep shit. You'll be out of a job, son!

JMIDS: I understand, sir, and yes, the scientific evidence is overwhelming.

SMIDS: Excellent. This is what we will do: First, we deny having used it...

JMIDS: ...but sir, they allready know we used it...

SMIDS: Son, you've got a lot to learn about Public Opinion Engineering! Listen now, this will work. First, we deny having used it, that should fuel the conspiracy buffs and get them some headlines in the mainstream press. We'll wait a month or two, then we admit it. That's that needs doing. Any questions?

Yep, this is the way it happened ;-). And it worked: It took the attention away from the fact that the military action was flawed, that NATO broke human rights principles as well (and should be prosecuted for it), and that the serbs would have thrown Milosevic out themselves if they had a tiny bit of support, they tried many times, and they eventually did.

"Green" Weapons is a lame attempt to make war look acceptable. But it isn't, it can't be. But, I fear, it will work... :-(

Maybe it's time to visit Rio?

Don't assume that better policy in one area necessarily translates into better policies in all other areas.

Rio's murder rate is 61 per 100,000. That's ten times as high as the United States in general, and more than twice as high as Flint, Michigan, which is widely regarded as one of those places that normal human beings just don't voluntarily enter.

"Dmitry should be freed and sent home immediately, and then the White House should send an apology to the Russians for this behavior.I know that they'd demand the same for one of our citizens cought up in a BS situation like this in another country."

Hmmm, a little optimistic methinks. I reckon the Americans would probably send the request for immediate return of their citizen along with immediate trade embargos that could take chunks out of the host country's economy.

Swap 'Russian citizen imprisoned in US for breaking US law' with, ...err... 'US citizen imprisoned in Afghanistan/North Korea/Ghana/Finland for breaking local law' and give me your impression of what the US would do...

I think it's time for us to speak up and be counted, my friends. Whatever your opinion, let your local politician know. Amnesty International has been very successful over the years in helping prisoners of conscience by encouraging people to write and contact their politicians and the media, keeping these forgotten people in the public view. We should take a leaf out of their book.

It was a joke in the same way we joke about the Brit's lack of dental care, the Irish drinking problems (I'm irish), and the same way the rest of the world mocks the US by acting like a big Texan. Do you get offended by Mike Meyer's "Dieter" character, who portrays all Germans as Artsy, Fetishistic, and Cold? Laugh, sometimes it's the only way to make it through the day.

And althought my note about the german phrase wasn't in the version on the site, That quote was from Zappa's Joe's Garage.

It was a joke in the same way we joke about the Brit's lack of dental care, the Irish drinking problems (I'm irish), and the same way the rest of the world mocks the US by acting like a big Texan. Do you get offended by Mike Meyer's "Dieter" character, who portrays all Germans as Artsy, Fetishistic, and Cold? Laugh, sometimes it's the only way to make it through the day.

And althought my note about the german phrase wasn't in the version on the site, That quote was from Zappa's Joe's Garage.

DO NOT BELIEVE THE HYPE - Read up for yourself. (4 different links)

For those with weak stomachs, you'll notice I made no mention of goatse.cx. I hope this will be enough to prevent me being modded down again.

DO NOT BELIEVE THE HYPE - Read up for yourself. (4 different links)

For those with weak stomachs, you'll notice I made no mention of goatse.cx. I hope this will be enough to prevent me being modded down again.

Violation of the Vienna Convention

A Mexican national, Miguel Angel Flores, was executed in Texas on 9 November, despite appeals for clemency from the Mexican and other governments. He was denied his treaty-based consular rights, as were most of the 90 foreign nationals on death row in the USA. In November, the International Court of Justice in The Hague heard arguments in a case brought against the USA by Germany following the execution of two German nationals in Arizona in 1999. The Court had not issued a ruling by the end of 2000.

This is from the Amnesty International 2001 World Report, the section on the U.S.

How so ? Give me any examples of that (human rights). It is a serious question.

The death penalty. Easy enough.

I could also go into better standards on freedom of speech, assembly, etc. As an example, look at the Guerrila Drive-In event in Minneapolis. This has been a successful event for two years and this year, because a movie entitled "Vampire Hookers" was to be shown, the city stepped in claiming a lack of proper permits, etc, when the organizers had made sure to get the proper paperwork completed just as in the two years prior. Now, in Berlin, some guy just dropped a headless cow from a helicopter. Another guy is displaying dead bodies that have been sealed in plastic and set dancing around a float in the love parade. Would these acts of speech be allowed in America?

I could go into the various social reforms - better education, universal health care, public transportation, environmental protection (actually living up to the Kyoto treaty), etc. And, more on topic, isn't voting one of the most basic rights in a democracy? America's high barriers to voting (registration is enough of a hassel) compared to mandantory registration in many European nations would be a good example there.

Of course, I haven't even touched on the human rights violations of American corporations, but since these are largely aimed at non-Americans, I'll leave them for another discussion. The fact that businesses, thanks to the 14th amendment, have the exact same rights as individuals, is proof enough that the United States has some problems with its human rights policies. For further review, I would direct you to Amnesty International's page on US human rights violations, but it seems to be down at the moment.

Having just gotten through Amnesty International's rather scathing 2000 report on the US, I'd have to agree with you there. It's scary enough what happens to actual citizens, if you come here from another country you have even fewer rights. I'm not going to argue that the US isn't a safer place than say, Chechnya, but safety's relative. If you're going to be detained in a prison for several years while the INS determines whether you're a valid refugee, for example, you might be a lot better off somewhere else.

Well, click here anyhow.

Let's see, the USA tortures prisoners, executes probably innocent prisoners and prisoners who are mentally retarded or who were children at the time of the crime, police brutality is rampant especially against racial minorities, children are often thrown into jail cells with brutal hardened criminals, children held in isolation for months at a time, widespread rape of female prisoners by male prison guards, regularly denies foreign prisoners the right to contact their consulate for legal representation, ...

Of course many other countries are much worse. While we do beat our protesters and frame them for murder, there are no widespread "Disappearances" of critics of the government. Indeed, a brief search of the Internet will find you hundreds of thousands of people criticising the government. In many countries, criticisms such as these that we are making here would be sufficient to have you "disappeared".

-E

Well, click here anyhow.

Let's see, the USA tortures prisoners, executes probably innocent prisoners and prisoners who are mentally retarded or who were children at the time of the crime, police brutality is rampant especially against racial minorities, children are often thrown into jail cells with brutal hardened criminals, children held in isolation for months at a time, widespread rape of female prisoners by male prison guards, regularly denies foreign prisoners the right to contact their consulate for legal representation, ...

Of course many other countries are much worse. While we do beat our protesters and frame them for murder, there are no widespread "Disappearances" of critics of the government. Indeed, a brief search of the Internet will find you hundreds of thousands of people criticising the government. In many countries, criticisms such as these that we are making here would be sufficient to have you "disappeared".

-E

I'm so fucking sick and tired of Slashdot "editors" making blatant political statements when they're supposedly reporting the news. To add insult to injury, the statements are quite often false or misleading. Let's dissect this story's editorial comments:

protect us from all those ballistic missiles that foreign nations don't have

China has 20 or so CSS-4 ICBMs targeted at US cities. Don't think they'd use them? This is the same government that has executed more people in the past three months than the rest of the world has in the past three years (yes, that includes Texas, save your lame jokes). Then there's Tiananmen Square, Tibet, Falun Gong, and a whole host of other human rights breaches in China.

Then there's North Korea, which is quite close to developing the ICBM technology to hit the US with nukes or biological or chemical warfare.

Then there's Iran and Iraq, with weapons programs of their own, and possibly also an interest in buying from North Korea, China, or Russia.

when you can just drive down from Canada with a suitcase nuke

First of all, you have to get a suitcase nuke. They're not exactly easy to make (remember how big the first atomic bombs were?), and only a few countries in the world can make them (Russia, US). In other words, you probably have to buy one from Russia.

Second, you have to get it in to Canada. While we do have huge unguarded borders up north, you're going to have a hell of a time getting it from the Yukon or wherever to the 49th parallel. Also, the US is pushing for increased Canadian border security and unified policies on security and entry into North America. I think they're aware of the issue.

Third, you have to cross the US border. While I don't know for sure, I would bet there are hidden radiation detectors at all the border crossings. Liquid scintillator column-style detectors are incredibly sensitive, and it would be nearly impossible to shield the near-critical fissionable material in a bomb from the detectors (the gamma rays produced have too much penetrating power). I happen to work at a particle accelerator with just such detectors on the shipping gates (to prevent accidental removal of contaminated material), and you wouldn't know they're there if there weren't signs. They just look like part of the fence posts. Of course, it would be silly for the government to make the existence of such detectors public knowledge, because that would mostly defeat the purpose, which is to catch terrorists.

Finally, suitcase nukes are low-yield (as in around one kiloton). The man-with-the-briefcase approach also doesn't have the same political or military effectiveness that a working ICBM has. Rogue Country X has to actually use a suitcase nuke to convince the world that they have the capability, and then they'll get blown to smithereens by the US. Not much is accomplished besides killing a few hundred thousand Americans (worst-case), and getting Country X's population reduced to single digits. On the other hand, if it becomes known that X has ICBMs in hardened silos, then they're suddently part of the Nuclear Club, and they get to play with the big boys. After all, look how nice the world is being to China, what with giving them the Olympics and all (worked really well in Berlin in 1936, didn't it?).

Because they're people trying to do the best of their job, just like any corporation's CEOs[1].

The problem is in their understanding of what their objectives are.

A simplicistic approach might be that a police force's job is arrest criminals. And if it stops at this, the more criminals they get, the more they're successful at their job.

The problem is that there should be more to being a police force: in the end the real job of a police force should be something like "ensure the public safety". But that's a very elusive goal, so it's easier to fall back to the simpler one (arrest as many criminals as possible [2]).

And to do this, they must stomp over the most elementary civil rights: if you (policeman) shoot in the crowd, you have some chances of hitting somebody you should, while all the innocent bystanders are "collateral damage" that doesn't appear in your curriculum, or on news outlets for that matter (think about the last time you heard a story about some innocent that has been arrested, or murdered [3]).[4]

[1] insert obligatory anti-corporations, anti-microsoft rant here
[2] after all, if everybody is in jail, there will be nobody out there that can endanger public safety
[3] somebody would use the word "executed" here. Those who do, please visit the Amnesty International website.
[4] of course I'm not suggesting that any policeman would shoot in the crowd just for the random chance to find a criminal. But I think that it can be agreed upon that the US government is undiscriminately screening children in schools, and this ruling implies that at least up to some point in time the police was undiscriminately using thermal imagin to spy in citizens' houses. This could lead to arresting people randomly.