Slashdot Mirror

http://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law

SINCE WHEN does Sweden's treaty with the US trump it's treaty obligations as an EU member? If Sweden passed him along to the US, it would ABSOLUTELY, CLEARLY, and UNEQUIVOCALLY be violating its obligations to the UK and the EU as a member fo the EU. Which do you think is more important to Sweden - the goodwill and love of America, or the goodwill and love of the UK, and the rest of Europe?

I dunno; given that they did it before, either they don't care much for that "goodwill", or the rest of EU finds it more convenient to not notice.

Oh, you thought that they were getting embroiled in a game of diplomatic chicken with one of the richest and most influential countries on this planet because it was "the right thing to do"? That's quaint.

If Ecuador really cared about "doing the right thing," they'd have a much better record on human rights than they do. No, this entire pissing contest is a way for Ecuador to burnish its own image with none of the risk that comes from taking a meaningful stand on something. But then, why enact significant reform, when you can make a token gesture and have this happen:

The mother of the hero of wikileaks goes on the record saying: "I was hopeful because I knew that President Correa, his government and the people wanted to ensure Julian’s safety, and they have a strong record of human rights and free speech," about a country who throws people in jail for 3 months up to 2 years, depending on the government official who was "offended" (look up "desacato"), and which the president has *taken advantage of*... that's a government that's REALLY committed to free speech and human rights.

Why enact reforms to fix problems, when you can just buy yourself the allegiance of wikileaks?

And before you start with "the US and UK and Sweden are just as bad on human rights," - spare me. If they're just as bad, then Ecuador should be getting criticized just as roundly as the rest of them, not hailed as some sort of hero for the singular, *self-serving* act of helping Assange avoid answering questions about his alleged crimes.

How did we get to a place where states like Russia, Venezuela, and Ecuador are â" explicitly or implicitly â" thought to be more "free" by ANY measure than the US, UK, and Sweden?

Are you really that confused that local optima might be different than global optima in a complex system? The US might be more free than Ecuador overall while Ecuador is more free for Julian Assange right now.

Look what Human Rights Watch say about Ecuador: http://www.hrw.org/americas/ecuador

Do you REALLY think Ecuador gives a rat's ass about Assange or Wikileaks? He is stupid enough to be a pawn in their game. They use Assange for political points and hope they can get away with it internationally. What do you think will happen when he has no news value at all? Will they continue to support him? Do Ecuador approve of his works? Are they interested in hosting Wikileaks?

But one thing you are right about, "[...]Ecuador is more free for Julian Assange right now.". The key word is right now. He might have bought himself some time, but I, sure as hell, wouldn't bet on Ecuador to keep my ass safe for any amount of time.

Dick Cheney already took care of that. Uncle Sam will invade the Netherland if any American is tried for war crimes

http://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law

Cheney took steps to protect against that

http://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law

Except Sweden handed people to CIA before and they then went lost in the global US torture regime.

Sweden Violated Torture Ban in CIA Rendition

In a decision made public today, the UN Human Rights Committee ruled that diplomatic assurances against torture did not provide an effective safeguard against ill-treatment in the case of an asylum seeker transferred from Sweden to Egypt by CIA operatives in December 2001. The committee decided that Swedenâ(TM)s involvement in the US transfer of Mohammed al-Zari to Egypt breached the absolute ban on torture, despite assurances of humane treatment provided by Egyptian authorities prior to the rendition.

Not that high integrity, it seems.

So is any of that supposed to be better or worse than the shit the US does to punish dissent and push its interests? I speak, of course, of widely planting moles and agent provocateurs into left wing associations, monitoring citizen communications without warrants, enacting "free speech zones" to prevent dissemination of politically unpopular speech, holding vast numbers of prisoners indefinitely and without charge, executing hundreds of people every year including teenagers and the mentally disabled, abducting and torturing people around the world, starting massive wars based on purposefully fake evidence, etc. Hell, human rights watch has an entire sub-site dedicated to the shit the US does, and here we are supposed to think that Equador is the worst country in the world?

Why is this "good"?

I see three likely outcomes:

1) Ecuador (not known for its sterling human rights record) suddenly starts receiving "glowing praise" for its devotion to human rights. I expect we'll see a "leak" of information to Wikileaks showing just how AMAZING the life of every person in Ecuador is, because it's a glowing land of milk, honey, where all your wildest dreams can come true! Why? Well, if Ecuador controls the destiny of Wikileaks' mouthpiece, they can easily dictate the coverage. (And spare us the "but America is just as bad" - if they're just as bad, they deserve every inch of criticism Assange has been leveling at America, too. But I forgot... Wikileaks is out to take down the AMERICAN government, not "corruption and collusion" wherever it exists, right?)

2) Assange cannot travel. Period. If he sets foot anywhere where Interpol has any jurisdictional influence, he will be arrested and extradited to Sweden to face the charges there. He will be at risk if he leaves Ecuador and goes ANY place where modern government & laws exist.

3) Assange accepting this further undermines any remaining bits of credibility he once had - he shows he's willing to get in bed with a corrupt & dictatorial regime to save himself, rather than answer questions relating to an alleged crime - this makes him look like he's got something to hide.

All in all, if Assange accepts asylum in Ecuador, he will have done more to destroy his own credibility and the credibility of Wikileaks than ANY nefarious CIA / NSA / FBI / Mossad / MI5 / Illuminati plot you can conceive of.

But yeah, "good" for Assange and Ecuador!

Quite apart from any supposed CIA attacks, Assange had better make sure he only says nice things about President Correa. From the Human Rights Watch Report:

Those involved in protests in which there are outbreaks of violence may be prosecuted on inflated and inappropriate terrorism charges. Criminal defamation laws that restrict freedom of expression remain in force and Correa has used them repeatedly against his critics... Impunity for police abuses is widespread... Ecuador’s Criminal Code still has provisions criminalizing desacato (“lack of respect”), under which anyone who offends a government official may receive a prison sentence up to three months and up to two years for offending the president... journalists face prison sentences and crippling damages for this offense... In a draft decree announced in December 2010, domestic NGOs, including those working on human rights, would have to re-register and submit to continuous government monitoring. The decree would give the government broad powers to dissolve groups for “political activism,”

Then again, Assange also said that Sweden was a great place where he felt totally safe, right up until the whole rape thing happened, at which point Sweden was suddenly declared a notorious US lackey...

I know you're being funny and I got a chuckle out of it ... but just fyi:

South American has the lowest levels of opiates use of any region in the world, cocaine at about half the rate of first-world countries and cannabis lower that all areas except SE Asia.

http://geocurrents.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Per-Capita-Opiate-Use-Map.jpg
It would seem Africa and East Asia use less opiates on average, thanks to Brazil.
Perhaps even Australia may use less opiates on average.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_prevalence_of_opiates_use, I looked up my own country, the Netherlands, where laws on opiate usage is somewhat more lenient than most countries in the world; about halfway down and much less than highly anti-drug countries such as the US. What does that tell you? Either enforcement is less in the US (22% of inmates will tell you otherwise; http://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/usa/incarceration/) or legalizing drugs actually lessens drug use (taking drugs is not rebelious and anti-establishment if you can legally do so).

China executes roughly 5000-8000 people each year for various crimes. The United States has been declining since 1999, and is currently somewhere around 40 per year. Accounting for (rather than ignoring) scale, China executes about 30 to 40 times as much of its own population as the United States. Of course, that's just one metric, but it's pretty illustrative.

China is big, but it's not big enough to dilute its atrocities.

will that include Russian and Ecuadorian secrets?

Ecuador... from Human Rights Watch He's found such a noble protector

Extrajudicial killings by security agents continue, and impunity for such human rights crimes remains the norm.

So, disarm the regular people, but not the security people... Yeah, that should solve everything.

Source

No He's a Laser Physicist... Iran wants to build a "Star Wars Defense System"!

So if you check out the "Human Rights Watch" you'll find that Iran is a stinking cesspool in the area of human rights and you simply can't be surprised at how unfair or nasty they are and on how little provocation they will burn you down and pee on the ashes. If you are LGBT or friendly to such, an "Intellectual or Social Scientist", an unhappy student, protester of any type, woman, child, religious/racial/or social minority, you best get ready to enjoy the hospitality of "Club Tehran" where they use real clubs and the only thing easier than the living is the dying.

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? FAIL.

"Washington, we have a problem." as a RIAA/MPAA driven Justice Department driven by Uncle Tom Obama send justice hurtling out of control. Steal the stuff, fire the employees, threatening them with extended homosexual rape in US prisons (don't deny Americans routinely comment on it and it is publicly acknowledged http://www.hrw.org/news/2007/12/15/us-federal-statistics-show-widespread-prison-rape).

So forget justice this is all about nothing but a corrupt betrayer in the highest office in the United States a true Uncle Tom and out of control greed and corruption.

Let's not be naive here. NK is a bandit state that follows and discards laws and regulations on a whim and in a seemingly irrational manner to an outside observer.

So is very nearly every other state. That local law supersedes international treaties (which is what international law is) is true everywhere in the world except in Europe, where this principle is massively abused (ie. politician that does not have backing of local population to, say, sign copyright treaties, simply makes sure he gets the foreign minister seat, signs the contract, and then brings a case before court that this treaty must be made law).

So almost no country in the world actually follows international law, and no, you wouldn't want them to.

Whether the same could be arranged with NK... I remain sceptical but to dismiss it off-hand is foolish. You seem to have a very ingrained mental image of NK being the very soul of evil and the US being the shining city on the hill, never acting in bad faith. This image is incorrect on both accounts.

Every situation is gray. Nevertheless what you're claiming essentially boils down to bad press will make them comply with law. There's 2 big things wrong with that, first, would you consider bad press sufficient punishment for someone who steals your life savings ? Second, it's not only bad press. For some reason half of the lefty press still praises north korea.

by the US State Dept. because they only really have a hammer and not every problem is a nail.

And now you're doing the black-and-white things yourself. I for one think the vast majority of American influence is grounded in the economy, not military action. Ironically, that is also not a very good thing to use in negotiations with North Korea, which prefers to let it's people starve rather than allow free enterprise (and just so you know, yes that is against the human rights treaty).

But international law is not respected anywhere. One of the primary rights given to any human on the planet is the right to choose their own religion. The countries and people always hammering on that are muslim countries. Saudi Arabia actually signed this, and does this (then again the muslim prophet signed a peace treaty with the original inhabitants of mecca, then attacked them essentially during the peace celebration, at which point he ordered every man woman and child killed "because they had resisted him". And just so you know, the reason that this was morally good is that he won that "battle". And this is viewed by muslims as great strategy, make no mistake about that).

So let's please stop with the international law bullshit. There is no international law, there is only international commerce, and trading things. And what I don't understand is that it's apparently forbidden to say that anyone who even remotely considers himself a muslim is obviously an enemy of human rights, and an enemy of equality. How can such an obvious fact be the remotest bit controversial ?

Most of your reply isn't really relevant because I've agreed with you that the US has serious problems and that some of them are getting worse. In that context, pointing to specific problems doesn't really do much. But it may be instructive to look at your examples:

Tarek Mehanna is an appalling example and not the only such case. Ward Churchill was guilty of severe plagiarism. It is true that people paid more attention to him and the plagiarism accusations because of his politically controversial statements, but that's a much weaker claim (and no one seriously disagrees with the plagiarism issue in his case). The issues related to recording the police are also a serious one and one that is really despicable. It varies a lot from state to state, and some states are actually improving (see for example, the ongoing legislation in Connecticut that will allow people to sue cops who try to interfere with recording http://stratford.patch.com/articles/bill-protects-citizens-recording-police-a8140340). In Pakistan, that wouldn't even be an issue because the police or military would just beat up the person recording and take the recording. Pihkal is a potential example of where someone was targeted for their speech, although actual violations of research and security policies were found in the lab. Your statement about the DMCA is just factually wrong- the DMCA prohibits circumvention of copy-protection mechanisms, it doesn't prohibit discussion of how to do so. The PROTECT_Act has some pretty stupid provisions, and trying to make virtual porn illegal is a violation of free speech by many notions. In Pakistan essentially all pornography is essentially illegal and they regularly block pornographic websites http://tribune.com.pk/story/293434/pta-approved-over-1000-porn-sites-blocked-in-pakistan/. Free speech zones are a really wretched idea and do implicitly violate actual free speech protections, although weak forms that only restrict time, place and manner without any content aspect are probably ok (and in fact courts in the last few years have struck down many attempts to restrict anything beyond that- see for example what happened with Texas Tech in 2004).

In the US one is subject to such searches if one is going on a plane

This amounts to millions of people subjected to searches, in a systematic and humiliating way.

You cut off part of my sentence which ended with "and one doesn't go through the backscatter screening", and that's quite relevant here. About 2 million people are subject monthly to pat-downs http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2011/may/17/janet-napolitano/homeland-security-chief-stresses-very-very-very-fe/. That estimate includes people who are getting pat-downs after they've already triggered some sort of warning, not just randomized pat-downs or op-out pat-downs. Again, the Pakistan situation is very different- the police and military can stop anyone on the streets and search them with no justification. I don't know if that results in more total searches in the US, but if it does, it is only because the US is a much larger country. As a percentage matter, the result would be pretty clear.

Any violation of this sort in Pakistan is actually orders of magnitude worse than the US

[citation needed]

Sure. http://www.hrw.org/asia/pakistan, http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/sca/154485.htm,

Yet another neo-Nazi no doubt!

Except the swedish judicial system works differently from the UK.

Except that he is in the U.K. Except that when he was in Sweden, the then prosecutor didn't see ground for prosecution. Except that "If Sweden were to say sucking toes without washing them first is rape, then would that be an extradition offence?"

Of course you also realize it is illegal for sweden to then extradite Assange to the USA

Oh ok, if it is "illegal" then no worry.

Also any guy in a high profile position(see Clinto, Cain,Spitzer) needs to be fully aware where he sticks his dick

Only if they live in places where a pitch-fork-yielding populace is unduly concerned in a creepy way about the sex life of other people (like U.S., Iran, etc.)

Meanwhile, the largest countries had adopted strategies that offer little for the developing world.

On the contrary. Many of the world's largest countries send massive amounts of aid to the developing world, which is then promptly stolen by corrupt governments of those countries. Zimbabwe used to be a net exporter of food and now they've got almost impossibly-high inflation rates. Maybe we should work on that before air-dropping laptops into these places?

Though I don't disagree that this isn't what these countries need, Zimbabwe is a horrible example to use in this case. In 2006 Robert Mugabe's government implemented a policy of "fast track land reform" that gave most of the country's hereditary, white-owned farmland over to new, inexperienced black owners. Though land ownership in Zimbabwe was indeed a relic of racial-class structure from British Colonial rule, when you make such a sweeping, heavy-handed move as Mugabe did it is no surprise that they have suffered such a massive drop in food production. Here is the Human Rights Watch report on the issue: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/zimbabwe/ZimLand0302-02.htm#P112_20168

No :-)

In my defence, painting protests as terrorism is all too common nowadays:

• DoD Training Manual: Protests are "Low-Level Terrorism"
• Protesting as a Terrorist Offense
• Bahrain Eyes Execution for Group of Protesters
• Protesters face anti-terror action

To solve a problem, you look for a cause. It has everything to do with American aggression: specifically, wanting to keep Ethiopia as an ally.

The piracy is a symptom and "oh we're just protecting the freedom of [oil tankers to carry our legitimately obtained oil over] the seas" is a hilarious excuse.

I fail to see how this is really news... Zimbabwe has a pretty bad human rights record, and stuff worse than this happens around the world all the time. A number of Universities have withdrawn honorary degrees given to Mugabe. The only difference here is the person whose rights were abused was a law professor.

http://www.hrw.org/en/world-report-2011/zimbabwe (Human Rights Watch report on Zimbabwe).

Still, the slashdot community tends to have only slightly more knowledge than the general public about human rights matters. So perhaps it's good to occasionally have such stories.

As long as during that time the accused isn't punished beyond what is necessary.

What I mean by necessary punishment is custody, and that pretty much it.

Hes been locked up in solitary confinement, made to sleep without clothing, not allowed to exercise, hes not allowed a sheet for his bed, or a pillow, prohibited from possessing any personal items, like letters or pictures.

This is psychological torutre. Im surprised they are letting him sleep. Hell even the country that started off the whole shebang in the middle east, Tunisia, promised to not use solitary confinement for more then ten days. That was in 2005. If a country corrupt enough to be overthrown by their own citizens, treats their prisoners better then we treat ours, then something is seriously messed up..

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2005/04/19/tunisia-pledges-end-long-solitary-confinement

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EH22Ak03.html

http://rescommunis.wordpress.com/2010/03/25/complaints-about-iranian-satellite-jamming/

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/06/23/letter-eutelsat-corporation

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/26/us-iran-jamming-itu-idUSTRE62P21G20100326

The Cuban government was home to an Iranian jamming program in the old Soviet facilities for years.

And the Libyans have done this before

http://www.space.com/3666-libya-pinpointed-source-months-long-satellite-jamming-2006.html

Nor does Sweden:

Extradition is permitted, provided that the act for which extradition is requested is equivalent to a crime that is punishable under Swedish law by imprisonment for at least one year.[...]

Extradition may not be granted for military or political offences. Nor may extradition be granted if there is reason to fear that the person whose extradition is requested runs a risk - on account of his or her ethnic origins, membership of a particular social group or religious or political beliefs - of being subjected to persecution threatening his or her life or freedom, or is serious in some other respect.[...]

Nor may he or she be re-extradited to another state without the consent of the Government. Furthermore, nor may the person who is extradited be sentenced to death.

Yeah, that's smart. Looking at what they say and not what they do.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition

They also fired on people, killing 84. Somehow they don't seem to understand that killing people will only make their situation worse. Libya will probably follow the same path as Egypt did, at least I certainly hope so. It's time for the people to take the power back.

I can't tell if you are serious or intending parody. Given that you posted as Anonymous Retard, I'll guess serious.

they had their chance and they blew it

If that's the case, you're arguing for the death penalty? For all "sex offenders"?

Remember that in some jurisdictions, a 19-year-old who has sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend is a "sex offender." "Sex Crimes" laws are enforced just as often because the parents don't like their daughter's boyfriend as because there is actually something involved.

You could be a "sex offender" if as a teenager you sent a cell phone picture of your naughty bits to another teenager.

Or you could become a "sex criminal" if you have consensual sex with someone else, and they decide in a moment of regret afterwards that you really "raped" them. And in cases where you were both drunk out of your minds, technically you both raped each other because neither was "fit" to consent, but guess who the cops are going to charge and who the prosecutor's going to try to convict?

If we had a system where only serious offenders - those who are clearly high age molesting kids, serial rapists, rapists who use serious force like gun or knife or beat someone up - were put under "sex offender" registration and stigma, that'd be one thing. I'd even be ok with changing their status so that they had to go through medical diagnosis to assess the likelihood of recidivism in order to reach parole status, or be transferred to psychiatric care once they were released from prison.

The fact remains, the system we have right now is overbroad and simply does not work. I'd personally argue that Florida's crazy statutes, that force someone to live under a bridge under their "cannot leave the county, cannot live within 2500 feet of the following places", also fall afoul of the US Constitution's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2007/09/11/us-sex-offender-laws-may-do-more-harm-good is a good example of some decent commentary, FWIW. Its sad to me when the threat of someone taking away our right to large-capacity rifle magazines after a political shooting gets a national outcry, but the idea of lifelong movement tracking of people who may have committed victimless misdemeanors decades ago is silently accepted. Probably because anyone who comes out against it is afraid that they'll be branded with the "pro-child-molestor" label... and put on the list.

I'd heard about that but couldn't find a link directly stating this. while I was searching I did stumble upon another suggesting that such an exception would be unnecessary. All the mines remaining in the DMZ are the responsibility of South Korea. There is support from the Senate over agreeing to the ban.

I wonder if he'll magically disappear off the grid and end up in one of the US's inhumane 'prisons'.

Not an impossibility, considering Sweden is on record assisting the US in its illegal rendition/torture

Sweden Violated Torture Ban in CIA Rendition http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition

I would just add, and what should prove to just about anyone that Israel has become the bad guys, is this little nugget which for those that don't want to RFTL is a nice article on how Israeli soldiers got a slap on the wrist for using a 9 year old child as a human shield and to "test boxes for possible bombs".

I'm sorry, but when you get to the point you don't even look at children from the other race as human and worth protecting, well then you are a sick racist fuck. Hitting a kid by accident in a firefight is one thing, knowingly using a little boy as a shield and bomb disposal bot is about as sick and evil as you can get. And it just sickens me we are shelling out to the tune of 2 billion plus a year to these people.

You want to know why so many countries hate us? Because they get hit with the barrel of a gun that says "Made in the USA" on it. We should take care of our own and if the Jewish people here in the USA want to send Israel money fine, but our tax dollars should NOT be going to these or any other of the asshole countries we have been propping up. And I'd love to see those that scream racist and anti-semite explain how using kids as human shields is okay. Wrong is wrong, evil is evil.

You're right ... when it comes to muslims, the sad fact is that Iranians are amongst the *most* tolerant muslims there are. Nevertheless, they're still genocidal.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2005/11/21/iran-two-more-executions-homosexual-conduct
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/08/06/iran-stop-abuse-political-prisoners
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/02/23/iran-end-persecution-baha
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/01/13/iran-prosecute-mortazavi-detention-deaths
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/01/09/iran-end-persecution-peaceful-activists
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/30/iran-end-persecution-nobel-laureate

Is there really any other word than "genocidal" to describe Iranian treatment of minorities, whether we're talking gays, religous minorities, or women, for that matter ?

Here's what wikipedia has to say about these Iranian humanitarians of yours :

The human wave tactic was implemented in the following way: The barely armed children and teenagers had to move continuously forward in perfectly straight rows. It did not matter whether they fell as canon fodder to enemy fire or detonated the mines with their bodies. The important thing was that the Basij continued to move forward over the torn and mutilated remains of their fallen comrades, going to their death in wave after wave.

( source given as Erich Wiedemann, Mit dem Paradies-Schlüssel in die Schlacht, in: Der Spiegel, no. 31/1982, p. 93. )

But as I said, when it comes to comparing muslims, you're absolutely right. Iran is without a doubt the most tolerant muslim state in existence (with malaysia as the only other candidate for that title, but I think the military threat of China has a lot to do with that). Iran's neighbors, well ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign

Is that clear enough ? If not, there's the Armenian massacre, the constant Saudi massacres that have barely stopped (just read their history), also read the Saudi treatment for "domestic servants" (you see islam allows slavery, including killing and raping slaves, and the paedophile prophet *did* that), the Pakistan "secession" massacres, what they try to do to Syria every 50 years or-so ...

I guess the point is, when you're talking about tolerant muslims, you're talking about people about as tolerant as Ahmadinejad, who are merely in favor of *slow* extermination of minorities (except gays and ahteists, they got to go quick, even for Ahmadinejad). Of course there also exist muslims that are a *lot* less tolerant, as the open exterminations that they do in countries like Indonesia,. Sudan, Mali, Western Sahara, Algeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan prove.

You're right ... when it comes to muslims, the sad fact is that Iranians are amongst the *most* tolerant muslims there are. Nevertheless, they're still genocidal.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2005/11/21/iran-two-more-executions-homosexual-conduct
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/08/06/iran-stop-abuse-political-prisoners
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/02/23/iran-end-persecution-baha
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/01/13/iran-prosecute-mortazavi-detention-deaths
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/01/09/iran-end-persecution-peaceful-activists
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/30/iran-end-persecution-nobel-laureate

Is there really any other word than "genocidal" to describe Iranian treatment of minorities, whether we're talking gays, religous minorities, or women, for that matter ?

Here's what wikipedia has to say about these Iranian humanitarians of yours :

The human wave tactic was implemented in the following way: The barely armed children and teenagers had to move continuously forward in perfectly straight rows. It did not matter whether they fell as canon fodder to enemy fire or detonated the mines with their bodies. The important thing was that the Basij continued to move forward over the torn and mutilated remains of their fallen comrades, going to their death in wave after wave.

( source given as Erich Wiedemann, Mit dem Paradies-Schlüssel in die Schlacht, in: Der Spiegel, no. 31/1982, p. 93. )

But as I said, when it comes to comparing muslims, you're absolutely right. Iran is without a doubt the most tolerant muslim state in existence (with malaysia as the only other candidate for that title, but I think the military threat of China has a lot to do with that). Iran's neighbors, well ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign

Is that clear enough ? If not, there's the Armenian massacre, the constant Saudi massacres that have barely stopped (just read their history), also read the Saudi treatment for "domestic servants" (you see islam allows slavery, including killing and raping slaves, and the paedophile prophet *did* that), the Pakistan "secession" massacres, what they try to do to Syria every 50 years or-so ...

I guess the point is, when you're talking about tolerant muslims, you're talking about people about as tolerant as Ahmadinejad, who are merely in favor of *slow* extermination of minorities (except gays and ahteists, they got to go quick, even for Ahmadinejad). Of course there also exist muslims that are a *lot* less tolerant, as the open exterminations that they do in countries like Indonesia,. Sudan, Mali, Western Sahara, Algeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan prove.

You're right ... when it comes to muslims, the sad fact is that Iranians are amongst the *most* tolerant muslims there are. Nevertheless, they're still genocidal.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2005/11/21/iran-two-more-executions-homosexual-conduct
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/08/06/iran-stop-abuse-political-prisoners
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/02/23/iran-end-persecution-baha
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/01/13/iran-prosecute-mortazavi-detention-deaths
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/01/09/iran-end-persecution-peaceful-activists
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/30/iran-end-persecution-nobel-laureate

Is there really any other word than "genocidal" to describe Iranian treatment of minorities, whether we're talking gays, religous minorities, or women, for that matter ?

Here's what wikipedia has to say about these Iranian humanitarians of yours :

The human wave tactic was implemented in the following way: The barely armed children and teenagers had to move continuously forward in perfectly straight rows. It did not matter whether they fell as canon fodder to enemy fire or detonated the mines with their bodies. The important thing was that the Basij continued to move forward over the torn and mutilated remains of their fallen comrades, going to their death in wave after wave.

( source given as Erich Wiedemann, Mit dem Paradies-Schlüssel in die Schlacht, in: Der Spiegel, no. 31/1982, p. 93. )

But as I said, when it comes to comparing muslims, you're absolutely right. Iran is without a doubt the most tolerant muslim state in existence (with malaysia as the only other candidate for that title, but I think the military threat of China has a lot to do with that). Iran's neighbors, well ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign

Is that clear enough ? If not, there's the Armenian massacre, the constant Saudi massacres that have barely stopped (just read their history), also read the Saudi treatment for "domestic servants" (you see islam allows slavery, including killing and raping slaves, and the paedophile prophet *did* that), the Pakistan "secession" massacres, what they try to do to Syria every 50 years or-so ...

I guess the point is, when you're talking about tolerant muslims, you're talking about people about as tolerant as Ahmadinejad, who are merely in favor of *slow* extermination of minorities (except gays and ahteists, they got to go quick, even for Ahmadinejad). Of course there also exist muslims that are a *lot* less tolerant, as the open exterminations that they do in countries like Indonesia,. Sudan, Mali, Western Sahara, Algeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan prove.

You're right ... when it comes to muslims, the sad fact is that Iranians are amongst the *most* tolerant muslims there are. Nevertheless, they're still genocidal.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2005/11/21/iran-two-more-executions-homosexual-conduct
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/08/06/iran-stop-abuse-political-prisoners
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/02/23/iran-end-persecution-baha
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/01/13/iran-prosecute-mortazavi-detention-deaths
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/01/09/iran-end-persecution-peaceful-activists
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/30/iran-end-persecution-nobel-laureate

Is there really any other word than "genocidal" to describe Iranian treatment of minorities, whether we're talking gays, religous minorities, or women, for that matter ?

Here's what wikipedia has to say about these Iranian humanitarians of yours :

The human wave tactic was implemented in the following way: The barely armed children and teenagers had to move continuously forward in perfectly straight rows. It did not matter whether they fell as canon fodder to enemy fire or detonated the mines with their bodies. The important thing was that the Basij continued to move forward over the torn and mutilated remains of their fallen comrades, going to their death in wave after wave.

( source given as Erich Wiedemann, Mit dem Paradies-Schlüssel in die Schlacht, in: Der Spiegel, no. 31/1982, p. 93. )

But as I said, when it comes to comparing muslims, you're absolutely right. Iran is without a doubt the most tolerant muslim state in existence (with malaysia as the only other candidate for that title, but I think the military threat of China has a lot to do with that). Iran's neighbors, well ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign

Is that clear enough ? If not, there's the Armenian massacre, the constant Saudi massacres that have barely stopped (just read their history), also read the Saudi treatment for "domestic servants" (you see islam allows slavery, including killing and raping slaves, and the paedophile prophet *did* that), the Pakistan "secession" massacres, what they try to do to Syria every 50 years or-so ...

I guess the point is, when you're talking about tolerant muslims, you're talking about people about as tolerant as Ahmadinejad, who are merely in favor of *slow* extermination of minorities (except gays and ahteists, they got to go quick, even for Ahmadinejad). Of course there also exist muslims that are a *lot* less tolerant, as the open exterminations that they do in countries like Indonesia,. Sudan, Mali, Western Sahara, Algeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan prove.

You're right ... when it comes to muslims, the sad fact is that Iranians are amongst the *most* tolerant muslims there are. Nevertheless, they're still genocidal.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2005/11/21/iran-two-more-executions-homosexual-conduct
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/08/06/iran-stop-abuse-political-prisoners
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/02/23/iran-end-persecution-baha
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/01/13/iran-prosecute-mortazavi-detention-deaths
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/01/09/iran-end-persecution-peaceful-activists
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/30/iran-end-persecution-nobel-laureate

Is there really any other word than "genocidal" to describe Iranian treatment of minorities, whether we're talking gays, religous minorities, or women, for that matter ?

Here's what wikipedia has to say about these Iranian humanitarians of yours :

The human wave tactic was implemented in the following way: The barely armed children and teenagers had to move continuously forward in perfectly straight rows. It did not matter whether they fell as canon fodder to enemy fire or detonated the mines with their bodies. The important thing was that the Basij continued to move forward over the torn and mutilated remains of their fallen comrades, going to their death in wave after wave.

( source given as Erich Wiedemann, Mit dem Paradies-Schlüssel in die Schlacht, in: Der Spiegel, no. 31/1982, p. 93. )

But as I said, when it comes to comparing muslims, you're absolutely right. Iran is without a doubt the most tolerant muslim state in existence (with malaysia as the only other candidate for that title, but I think the military threat of China has a lot to do with that). Iran's neighbors, well ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign

Is that clear enough ? If not, there's the Armenian massacre, the constant Saudi massacres that have barely stopped (just read their history), also read the Saudi treatment for "domestic servants" (you see islam allows slavery, including killing and raping slaves, and the paedophile prophet *did* that), the Pakistan "secession" massacres, what they try to do to Syria every 50 years or-so ...

I guess the point is, when you're talking about tolerant muslims, you're talking about people about as tolerant as Ahmadinejad, who are merely in favor of *slow* extermination of minorities (except gays and ahteists, they got to go quick, even for Ahmadinejad). Of course there also exist muslims that are a *lot* less tolerant, as the open exterminations that they do in countries like Indonesia,. Sudan, Mali, Western Sahara, Algeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan prove.

You're right ... when it comes to muslims, the sad fact is that Iranians are amongst the *most* tolerant muslims there are. Nevertheless, they're still genocidal.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2005/11/21/iran-two-more-executions-homosexual-conduct
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/08/06/iran-stop-abuse-political-prisoners
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/02/23/iran-end-persecution-baha
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/01/13/iran-prosecute-mortazavi-detention-deaths
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/01/09/iran-end-persecution-peaceful-activists
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/30/iran-end-persecution-nobel-laureate

Is there really any other word than "genocidal" to describe Iranian treatment of minorities, whether we're talking gays, religous minorities, or women, for that matter ?

Here's what wikipedia has to say about these Iranian humanitarians of yours :

The human wave tactic was implemented in the following way: The barely armed children and teenagers had to move continuously forward in perfectly straight rows. It did not matter whether they fell as canon fodder to enemy fire or detonated the mines with their bodies. The important thing was that the Basij continued to move forward over the torn and mutilated remains of their fallen comrades, going to their death in wave after wave.

( source given as Erich Wiedemann, Mit dem Paradies-Schlüssel in die Schlacht, in: Der Spiegel, no. 31/1982, p. 93. )

But as I said, when it comes to comparing muslims, you're absolutely right. Iran is without a doubt the most tolerant muslim state in existence (with malaysia as the only other candidate for that title, but I think the military threat of China has a lot to do with that). Iran's neighbors, well ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign

Is that clear enough ? If not, there's the Armenian massacre, the constant Saudi massacres that have barely stopped (just read their history), also read the Saudi treatment for "domestic servants" (you see islam allows slavery, including killing and raping slaves, and the paedophile prophet *did* that), the Pakistan "secession" massacres, what they try to do to Syria every 50 years or-so ...

I guess the point is, when you're talking about tolerant muslims, you're talking about people about as tolerant as Ahmadinejad, who are merely in favor of *slow* extermination of minorities (except gays and ahteists, they got to go quick, even for Ahmadinejad). Of course there also exist muslims that are a *lot* less tolerant, as the open exterminations that they do in countries like Indonesia,. Sudan, Mali, Western Sahara, Algeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan prove.

While we don't do many atrocities to people here at home, the "third world" is open game.

Guess that depends on the definition of many. The US has the highest number of children in prison for life without parole. Puts some people whom appear to be Mexican in prison for that reason alone, for years, without access to attorneys or judges, before deportation. Puts a substantial percentage of people with varying shades of skin in prison for minor reasons, and keeps them there for life thanks to a baseball mentality of 3 strikes and bigoted sentencing. Just a sampling of the atrocities that occur in the US thanks to having biased people working in government and positions of authority. As you note, the atrocities the US government and its big business boss commit in other countries are worse and the scale larger, but there's enough to have some at home too.

This makes articles such as http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/03/22/china-google-withdrawal-shows-government-intransigence">this one, where Google is praised for their support for basic human rights, was in essence a exercise in hypocrisy.

No, it just makes it an exercise in naiveté.

P.S. HTML FAIL OMFG WTF BBQ

This makes articles such as http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/03/22/china-google-withdrawal-shows-government-intransigence [slashdot.org]">this one, where Google is praised for their support for basic human rights, was in essence a exercise in hypocrisy.

http://yro.slashdot.org/ahref=
OMG, teh Google censored Slashdot!!

You should perhaps read before you write.

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/wrd/iraq-women.htm

Historically, Iraqi women and girls have enjoyed relatively more rights than many of their counterparts in the Middle East. The Iraqi Provisional Constitution (drafted in 1970) formally guaranteed equal rights to women and other laws specifically ensured their right to vote, attend school, run for political office, and own property. Yet, since the 1991 Gulf War, the position of women within Iraqi society has deteriorated rapidly. Women and girls were disproportionately affected by the economic consequences of the U.N. sanctions, and lacked access to food, health care, and education. These effects were compounded by changes in the law that restricted women's mobility and access to the formal sector in an effort to ensure jobs to men and appease conservative religious and tribal groups...

The primary legal underpinning of women's equality is contained in the Iraqi Provisional Constitution, which was drafted by the Ba'ath party in 1970. Article 19 declares all citizens equal before the law regardless of sex, blood, language, social origin, or religion. In January 1971, Iraq also ratified the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which provide equal protection under international law to all...

I know google is tricky, but I think you can figure out how to work it in less time than it took to write that. How about Human Rights Watch's document on sex offender laws in the us? It was near the top: "At least 13 states require registration for public urination;"

Of course, that was from 2007. I'm sure that since then, the US has gotten loads more sensible, and less states than that have such a law on the books.....

I hope he has the shit raped out of him

+5 Insightful? Only on Slashdot...

"The only sure defense against rape is the willingness to fight, and even this may be no protection against gang assault. In many prisons a small, unaggressive white is sure to be raped, probably by blacks or Hispanics. As one prison guard explains, a young white has “almost zero” chance of escaping rape “unless he’s willing to stick someone with a knife and fortunate enough to have one.” Some of the tougher inmates may even fight each other for the chance to rape an effeminate young white." link

Have you never, ever committed a crime? Really? Because if you have, maybe you would like to reconsider your views.

"I hate to say this, but if you weren't racist when you came to prison more than likely you will be when you leave."

Sounds like a great way to rehabilitate criminals and build a better society. Not.

http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2008/09/18/decade-under-ch-vez
http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2004/06/16/rigging-rule-law-0
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/10/09/hugo-ch-vez-versus-human-rights
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/25/oas-report-chavez-human-rights
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/18/venezuela.humanrights

Venezuela may be becoming many things, but free is not one of them.

http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2008/09/18/decade-under-ch-vez
http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2004/06/16/rigging-rule-law-0
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/10/09/hugo-ch-vez-versus-human-rights
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/25/oas-report-chavez-human-rights
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/18/venezuela.humanrights

Venezuela may be becoming many things, but free is not one of them.

http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2008/09/18/decade-under-ch-vez
http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2004/06/16/rigging-rule-law-0
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/10/09/hugo-ch-vez-versus-human-rights
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/25/oas-report-chavez-human-rights
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/18/venezuela.humanrights

Venezuela may be becoming many things, but free is not one of them.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/06/19/race-drugs-and-law-enforcement-united-states

Blacks and whites engage in drug offenses at about the same rate. They use drugs and they sell drugs at about the same rate. Since there are six-and-a-half times as many whites in this country, you would think there would be then proportionally six-and-a-half times as many whites being arrested on drug charges.

But that’s not the case, because the police aren’t going into white homes, white bars, white neighborhoods, white offices to make drug arrests. They’re going into black neighborhoods. And if you go into black neighborhoods, that’s where you’ll be arresting black people. And I don’t think that’s—I mean, I hate to say it, but it’s not coincidental.

That's Jamie Fellner, author of the above linked study. Since this is a problem that is ignored by Americans, you're going to have a hard time finding a study about it. Sort of like looking for studies about racism in South Africa in the 80s, or in America in the 40s and 50s.

I'm not sure where those statistics came from, so I ignored them. The article you cite lacked a source for that tidbit... Yes, there is a bit of racial issues involved, but it isn't the whole story.

Head in sand? Check. Callous disregard for other humans? Check.

Don't call yourself a socialist. You're just a keynesian who pretends to be compassionate. You're more like a National Socialist who would wipe the ash off of his windshield, and then whistle on his way to work.

You don't have a clue what it's like to be born into and grow up in a ghetto. You can't even imagine waking yourself up to go to school, not having breakfast, being half asleep all day from the sirens and the gunfire and the fights from the night before, and then going back home straight into your room, because it's simply not safe to be outside.

White kids absolutely glorify the same things. They love violence committed by the army and the police. They love bling in the form of 3 series BMWs and high end clothing labels and watches. They glorify drugs and use them, too. But here's the difference:

Since the mid 1980s, the United States has undertaken aggressive law enforcement strategies and criminal justice policies aimed at curtailing drug abuse. The costs and benefits of this national war on drugs are fiercely debated. What is not debatable, however, is its impact on black Americans. Ostensibly color blind, the war on drugs has been waged disproportionately against black Americans.

Our research shows that blacks comprise 62.7 percent and whites 36.7 percent of all drug offenders admitted to state prison, even though federal surveys and other data detailed in this report show clearly that this racial disparity bears scant relation to racial differences in drug offending. There are... five times more white drug users than black. Relative to population, black men are admitted to state prison on drug charges at a rate that is 13.4 times greater than that of white men. In large part because of the extraordinary racial disparities in incarceration for drug offenses, blacks are incarcerated for all offenses at 8.2 times the rate of whites. One in every 20 black men over the age of 18 in the United States is in state or federal prison, compared to one in 180 white men.

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/2000/usa/Rcedrg00.htm#P54_1086

Sure, the poor and black communities can do more, but they are under constant surveillance and attack from police and the press (Fox versus ACORN, for instance.) How many times have you been stopped in your own neighborhood for walking? If the answer is never, you're probably white. If the answer is every week, you're probably black. And when they find a joint on you, or there's been a crime reported nearby, or you're under 18 and it's after 11, where do you think you go? Do you think someone can afford to bail you out? What kind of person are you going to be after the first time you're picked up and thrown in jail on petty offenses? What about the second time? What about the third?

Humans are not perfect, They cannot grin and bear every situation. You can turn them into criminals with not too much effort. And you can keep lying to yourself if you like about the end of racism. But you can't lie to me, or to anyone else who's stepped foot outside of the gates of white America.