Slashdot Mirror

Has it ever occurred to you that it's possible Cuban Law is simply wrong on this point?

Has it ever occurred to you that the Cubans have the right to defend themselves? Because that's the right you are denying them. When the US interest are attacked, you don't ask for justification to invade your attacker. Yet when Cuba is, you claim that Cuban law is "wrong" for wanting to defend themselves.

Since you're talking about practice the actual letter of the law is irrelevant. What matters is convictions. Name one whose been convicted. Seriously. Name a single person convicted of being an unregistered foreign agent who was not a citizen of the US.

The Cuban Five. Notice how I ignore the "not a citizen of the US part". Being a citizen of the US had nothing to do with the convictions: they were convicted for failing to register as agents, for "conspiracy to commit espionage" (even though the prosecution couldn't prove that any secret document was leaked) and "conspiracy to commit murder" (even though they had no way of knowing the outcome).

You set up arbitrary rules that effectively stop Cuba from defending themselves (like being free to enter the US without registering and being citizens). You asked earlier, that's what I meant by arbitrary. The Cubans don't play by those rules, because those "rules", besides made up, imply "just sit there and do nothing while we invade you." You cannot unilaterally make up a rule that benefits you and then claim foul when the other party unilaterally decides to ignore it.

You realize you;re talking about thought crimes. He didn't have to do anything, but those thought he thought while he was in Washington DC were anti-Cuban, so he can be charged with thinking them while he was in Havana.

Sigh. Again. He acted in Cuba. And it's rich that you speak about thought crimes, given that the "conspiracy" charges are essentially thought crimes too, and you don't seem to have any problem with those, as long as they are not directed against your agents. But again, irrelevant, he wasn't convicted for sitting in DC thinking about what he was going to do. He was convicted for going to Cuba and doing his part in the conspiracy.

In international relations when something pisses you off you don't bitch about in press releases for 25 flights, and then go straight for the jugular.

Read some history. They didn't "bitch about it in press releases for 25 flights", they denounced it, repeatedly, to the US authorities, only to be ignored until they took action.

If you're Cuba, and you want the thaw to continue, your job is let them get away with most of it and demonstrate you aren't trying to piss the US off in the rare occasions you do respond.

What else can I say. Read that document. That's just one decade. They have suffered through 6. They have gone through diplomatic channels repeatedly. And whenever they respond, some of you claim that they shouldn't have. Of course they wanted the Cubans to react, the thing is, the outcome would have been the same if they had reacted to any of the previous or future incidents.

Don't be ridiculous. Might has nothing to do with it.

Of course it has. You claim that the US has every right to keep provoking them, and that they don't have any right whatsoever to respond, under the threat of further violence or continuing embargo. And even if they don't do anything, the US still claims the right to harden the embargo (Torricelli act, 1992).

Note that both the exiles in the planes, and the Congressmen who insisted Gross be sent on his mission; wanted Cuba to over-react. It was their plan. Either the Cubans are too stupid to see that, or Cuba's plan is to continue the embargo indefinitely.

You are being purposedly dense. It

Per capita CO2 emissions is the only fair way to assess this:

Tonnes CO2 per person per year
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Australia: 16.75
China: 6.18
India: 1.64

2010 data:
Source: http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Se...

So in summary Australia is 2.7 times as bad a greenhouse gas emissions offender as China and more than 10 times worse than India, on a per person basis.

It's not going to work to say: You poor guys tighten your belts a bit more eh, when the real numbers are as they are shown above.
It's massive hypocrisy to blame China and India for this problem.
Lead by example Australia. Cut your emissions in have to 8 Tonnes CO2 per person, then you might ask China not to grow to more than 8 Tonnes per person.

China is in complete violation of international law and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which China itself signed and had agreed to and ">ratified in 1996.

That's nice and all, but unless somebody actually does something about it, all those laws don't matter a hill of beans.

Russia is being embargoed half-heartedly by half the world and I'd be shocked if they ever gave up Crimea. Nobody cares enough about some artificial islands to go to war over them, and next thing you know they'll be setting up oil rigs. Unless everybody agrees to sanction China in a way that costs more than all that oil is worth, China will get what it wants. The problem is that sanctions cut both ways, and politicians get far more money if they keep trade going than if they shut it down.

Bullshit.

China is in complete violation of international law and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which China itself signed and had agreed to and ">ratified in 1996.

China has been building structures, hunting and mass poaching endangered species and destroying coral reefs within the maritime exclusive economic zones of The Philippines and Vietnam (200 nautical miles or 370km from the coastline of those countries) while at the same time, forming naval blockades and harassing fishermen from Vietnam and the Philippines in their own waters. Recently a Chinese fishing vessel was caught with the poaching and mass slaughter of over 500 endangered and protected sea turtles within Philippine waters. Pics of the slaughter.

This article is a must-read on the behavior of the 800lb gorilla China and its bullying tactics: China's Pre-Imperial Overstretch and follow-up article: China and the Mosquitoes.

Another must read is the NY Times article A Game of Shark And Minnow about the ragtag crew of Philippine marines stationed on a grounded derelict ship in the area as an outpost. That NY Times article has a very good diagram on the 200NM exclusive economic zones and China's ridiculous "nine-dash line" tongue-shaped delineation which claims the entirety of the area hundreds of miles away from their nearest legal territory, Hainan Island. The basis of China's 9-dash line claims? Fabricated bullshit. Pre-19th century maps show this. Even China's own historical maps contradict their absurd claims. Bullying, intimidation, violation, invasion and annexation of territories of smaller, weaker states. It's that simple. See also: Tibet.

I don't know if you're just trying to be histrionic or what, but to be clear:

http://www.un.org/en/ga/search...

- The context of the Ukrainian "surrender of it's nukes" was that after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, they ended up with the ownership of a number of nuclear warheads.
- Given the context of the time, and granting the facts that they could neither secure them properly nor likely even use them as the arming codes were in Russian hands, the US, UK, and Russia signed a memo of understanding with Ukraine in exchange for their sending the warheads for reprocessing.

In the first place, this memo stated that the signatories: "...respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine..." and "...refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine...." Further, they agreed to seek UN security council action "...if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used;"

As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no guarantee of territorial integrity (as has been implied heavily by media reporting). No terms of mutual defense, or assistance.

Finally, that this was a MEMO and not a ratifiable treaty lies at the heart of the matter: it was a dead-letter the moment it was signed, not worth the ink used to print it. Without treaty status it was merely an agreement in principle, of the moment, and utterly without binding power by the long-accepted standards of geopolitics.

By the letter of the memo, the US and UK have in fact fulfilled their obligations. (Russia clearly didn't "...respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.")

It should be clear, then, that Ukraine wasn't exactly beating its swords into plowshares; more accurately they were giving away their swords that they couldn't use anyway, in return for a tepid, unenforceable agreement that only was relevant in the event of an actual nuclear exchange. Was it worth it? It's been 20 years during which - pretty much - Russia has paid Ukraine's bills, sold them cheap gas, and largely subsidized their entire existence.

I'd agree that the spirit of the thing was much more broadly (and inaccurately) celebrated; on whose responsibility that rests, I'll leave to others. The fact is that in geopolitics and diplomacy, details MATTER.

Don't get me wrong; I don't believe Putin's seizure of the Crimea was legitimate by ANY standard. He's an old school Soviet (if not Tsarist) Man who has adroitly outmaneuvered the severely-outclassed US and EU administrations with a coup akin to Munich 1939.

Neither am I giving Obama a pass. The US was never going to (nor should it reasonably ever consider) become directly involved in a territory adjacent to Russia. Any rational view would recognize that Ukraine is substantially within the Russian sphere of influence. NEVERTHELESS, the US has ample tools in its toolbox to deal with "bad actors" in many indirect ways, and reassure our actual allies of our firm commitment to their security. Yet the US response has been confused, dilatory, impotent, and in many ways strengthened Putin's propaganda hand (The US sent the head of the CIA to a state where Russia accused the public movements of being 'inspired' by the west....seriously?). That Russia has - by most measures - pulled this off without lasting diplomatic consequence is shameful.

My point is this: the characterization of the Memo in the media has been deeply flawed. For all the criticisms that can be fairly laid at the doorstep of the west on this matter, failing to live up to that memo is NOT one of them.

Article 12.The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

http://www.un.org/en/documents...

Universal means it is about all humans, not only Anglo-saxons, British or US citizens.

Actually it depends who they're spying on. Both countries are signatories to and have ratified the covenants stemming from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the UK the European Declaration of Human Rights also. This means both nations are bound by law to respect article 12, specifically:

"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

As it's impossible to argue that their spying programs aren't arbitrary, they're clearly in breach of this.

Not that it matters, because it's getting harder to find any article in the UDHR that is actually respected (honestly, peruse the articles, it's not hard to think of examples of breaches by the UK/US for nearly all of them: http://www.un.org/cyberschoolb...), but fundamentally the idea that there is any kind of legal basis for arbitrary interception of data by either nation regardless of the target - national or international, is wrong. It's in their interest to pretend that's not the case, that GCHQ "works within legal frameworks" and so forth, but they're lying. Not just twisting the truth a bit, not just telling a half truth, not using a loophole, no, they're just outright lying when they say what they do is legal.

Note that this doesn't mean they cannot spy, spying for the purpose of determining if a suspect is a criminal, isn't arbitrary. Spying on everyone and anyone they may feel like, is and that's the problem with both nation's programmes and that's where they fall foul of the law - they're indiscriminate, and that makes them illegal. They can fix this simply by sticking the intelligence back into intelligence agencies - there's nothing intelligent about blanket surveillance, on the contrary it's the reason the likes of the Boston bombings still happen - because there is such thing is too much information, such that the important stuff gets missed.

There is no legal, ethical, or moral basis for blanket spying. It's ineffective and illegal.

The U.S. government, sanctioned by Congress, declared the Black Hills, and other land, to be owned by the Lakota; then when gold was found there, not only refused to stop miners from exploiting it, the goverment started building a trail and forts on land it expressely had recognized as foreign (treaty of 1851); eventually leading to war between the tribes and the U.S. Army, to be followed by the 1868 treaty.

The 1868 treaty was quickly thrown aside and a new war erupted between the tribes and the U.S.

Please read the Treaty of Ft. Laramie, 1851 and 1868.

Finally, the U.N. passed the Resolution on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which was not signed by the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zeland; four countries that have, ahem, problems with their indigenous population.

Yes, your proud country went back on its word twice and to this day, it refuses to honor the treaties it signed and were approved by Congress.

Maybe this sort of thing contributes to why Japan had a murder rate of 0.4 per 100,000 people in 2009, compared to the U.S. rate of 4.4 (Afganistan, for the record, had a murder rate per 100,000 of 2.4 in 2008).

It's long past time for the U.S. to stop setting firearms policy based on the paranoid fantasies of a bunch of brain-damaged rednecks.

Sorry, we have not filled them up yet.

America is out of food days, now there are duplicates.

During flight the law inside an aircraft is genrally of the country of registration. So if these flights are on planes registered to the United States INTERPOL has no authority.

Isn't it? " (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, ..."

Yes it is.

Why is marriage a "basic human right?" It's never been a basic human right.

It's been a basic human right for probably longer than you've been alive.

And the concept of a gay marriage never existed in the 6,000 years of recorded history until about 15 years ago.

It goes back much farther than that. Even in the modern United States, gay marriage is an old idea -- again, probably older than you are.

First of all: in nearly all cultures the privilege of marriage is honored since millenia.

More important: http://www.un.org/en/documents...

Article 16 of the humans right charta. In 100 years there won't be any sex restriction or gender restriction in that article any,ore, likely sooner.

Hyperbole just makes you look like a fool.

No one owns landmines legally and while many do have automatic firearms, they are highly regulated and owners go through extensive background checks.

Indeed; hyperbole would make me look like a fool. However, I'm not being hyperbolic. I'll reiterate what I said to Archangel Michael:

You seem to have a very small partisan US-centric world view. Hopefully my comment will help you to think outside the box :)

Read these: http://newint.org/features/199...
http://www.un.org/en/globaliss...

Every year, landmines kill 15,000 to 20,000 people — most of them children, women and the elderly — and severely maim countless more. Scattered in some 78 countries, they are an ongoing reminder of conflicts which have been over for years or even decades. Yet despite this random carnage, they continue to used as weapons of war.

Once again, this isn't hyperbole -- it's just how things are. I guess if you've never lived near an area that at some point had landmines deployed, with no record available of exactly what the coverage area was, nor of how many may still be left, you might not find this an issue. I've spent time near some WWII testing areas where this is the case -- thankfully, the result was that the entire suspected area has been fenced off ever since, and it's been scanned multiple times to ensure there are none left, but what a waste of land and energy.

What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." don't you understand? Here is the source of that quote.

At the very least, freedom of speech seems to apply to /. and other Internet forums. True, NSA has not made a law restricting it, but since Free Speech seems to be protected by the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, polluting Internet forums without legal authorizations to do so could open the possibility of a legal recourse for not respecting the Constitutional Rights of U.S. citizens.

Oh, it's GCHQ you say? Fine, the United Kindom (and the United States!) has signed, since 1948, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states, in its 19th article: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.". Here is the source of this quote. That seems to cover the British side of things.

As a reminder, it seems that GCHQ and NSA have created fake Slashdot sites to trap European citizens. They have violated the US Constitution and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They can, therefore, be considered as unlawful organisations engaged in unlawful activities.

This does not mean, in any way, shape or form, that other intelligence organizations are not violating basic human rights of free speech and free assembly. We are being spied on and manipulated in a panopticon way, which is designed to silence and stifle dissent and basic human rights.

Let's not forget this thing either.

First off, that was based on 2005 data. That was when America was at its WORST, which is why so many researchers want to use that.
The problem is, that all of BRIC has made building out electricity a priority and all are making use of Coal. BUT your nation has actually focused on a decent diversification on this, which is good. Back in 2005, Brazil imported lots of electricity from Argentina (which is ~50% coal). Since then, your nation has made it a focus to quit importing it. But that has meant nukes (good) and coal (bad).

Now, with that said, the one issue that I have with your post, is that you based it on GDP (PPP). I purposely said that we need a direct $GDP. The reason is that a nation like China will simply fix their money against others to get the manufacturing along with using dirty electricity. Then by using GDP(PPP), that removes the penalty that would occur. so, GDP(PPP) is worthless. However, here is one example of where BRIC and America stand. You will note that Brazil is doing fine (though interestingly, it is flatlined), but the rest of BRIC is pretty high. And that was using GDP(PPP), as opposed to flat out $GDP.

The UN's general assembly is a democratic body with one vote for each participating government. Most of the governments of the world are broken. Ergo the general assembly is broken.

If you think the UN really works like that you don't really understand how it works. The more powerful governments have influence over the less powerful. Furthermore relatively little is done through the General Assembly which is just one part of the UN and not necessarily the most important part.

I don't really care if the UN or the US controls the internet. I do however suspect that the 95% of the world that is not the US will sooner or later decide to circumvent ICANN at some point if they don't change their ways.

Most people that understand the UN could explain this to you. Perhaps you weren't listening?

Apparently you aren't someone who understands the UN.

Beside freedom people have also other rights, which you seem to have forgotten. Anyway, the people still living in Detroit do so, because they cannot just leave. Either these people have a job and not the prospect of getting one elsewhere or they have not the resources to move. So while the administration in Detroit messed up, the people still living their have to pay for it. On a side note, there is something called compassion. You cannot let them die, just because they are unable to solve their present crisis. This is pretty much inhuman.

And as the USA claim always to stay up for human rights:
- Freedom (to go where you want, to work want you want, to pray to your favorite deity, own something, etc.)
- Protection
- Housing (you have the right to live somewhere)
- Work (you have to right to be provided with work or something to do)
- Education
- Health
http://www.un.org/en/documents...

So in essence, even if you have made a long list of wrong decisions and failed miserably, you still have these rights. And you deserve to be helped. If you are a criminal, your rights, especially freedom will be limited, because you are such a big disruption to other people rights.

I'd say that those senators who support "free speech zones" are clearly enemies of the constitution.

I support a free speech zone - it's called the United States.

I support a rather larger one.

Article 19.

        Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

This should be an interesting page to read. It's usually a surprise to see how the laws and behaviors of one's country are in contrast with that declaration.

US only contributes 22%.

The US "only" contributes 22% of the UN budget? Not only is that more than double what the next country contributes (and more than 3x what the top European country contributes), but 22% is also the maximum allowed for a contribution for the period of 2013-2015 (the minimum is 0.001%). The US is at the max, we can't contribute any more, sorry. Maybe all of Europe can step up and help out a little more to lower our $618 million bill. Here is the document that lists the actual contributions from each country, and the rules for contributions are here.

US only contributes 22%.

The US "only" contributes 22% of the UN budget? Not only is that more than double what the next country contributes (and more than 3x what the top European country contributes), but 22% is also the maximum allowed for a contribution for the period of 2013-2015 (the minimum is 0.001%). The US is at the max, we can't contribute any more, sorry. Maybe all of Europe can step up and help out a little more to lower our $618 million bill. Here is the document that lists the actual contributions from each country, and the rules for contributions are here.

Just because AC is being paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get him.

No shit.

I mean granted, I personally don't buy the conspiracy angle (They're going to force all the people in the Midwest to relocate to the coasts? Obviously anyone who thinks that has never met any actual Midwesterners), but conspiracy theories or not, there very much is a book, written and updated by UN councils, that outlines how they believe nations should control population and resource use, and some of it is pretty fucked up, if you actually bother to read the document.

Of course, we must always keep in mind that the UN is basically toothless.

Try this definition. It's really special. Amusingly, in a dispute between US fisherman and the Canadian government, lawyers once successfully argued that scallops are not "sedentary species" because they don't push against the bottom to move themselves. USA loves this "continental shelf" extension past the old 200 mile limit for claiming petroleum resources in the Gulf of Mexico.

Maybe the rest of the human rights are anomalies too. Cant we start stripping them from the people that affirms that privacy should not need to be respected?

In general.

And here's the same tired old argument that we see when a third world country plans a satellite launch. Oh noes ... they don't have enough toilets ... and while they are sorting that, they should just sit around for the next couple of hundred years doing nothing else!

The UN does have specific hunger and poverty eradication goals and organizations that look into those issues. See these:
http://www.unicef.org/mdg/poverty.html
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/poverty.shtml

That doesn't mean the UN shouldn't have unrelated committees/arms investigating other issues and see if something can be done to address those.

You are wiser than most to realize that there is a distinction between Constitutionally granted rights and what many people are now declaring is a right.

You are right in a sense, but I think you are seeing "rights" too narrowly. The distinction that is generally made is between classical, negative rights (the ones in your 'bill of rights') and the positive, modern, or social rights (such as in your "equal protection" clause and in many european constitutions and also in some articles of the universal and European declarations of human rights.

The right to free speech is a "classic" (human) right. It is something between you and the government, and it acts as a prohibition on the government. It is a 'negative right' in that the government isn't forced to *do* anything, they're forced to not do stuff, like putting you in prison if you say stuff. The bill of rights used the phrase "congress shall pass no law" for a reason. The right doesn't mean that the government has to pay publishing cost for your newspaper, and it also doesn't mean that other citizens are forced to listen to you or banned from telling you that you're a twit if you 'exercise' your basic right. These rights can be "absolute" in the sense that they allow no exceptions, although it often isn't (the classical example being yelling 'fire!' in a crowded cinema) and in principle they cannot clash, since every negative right bans the government from doing something. The right to the freedom of the press and the freedom of religion do not clash: if you exercise your press freedom to say that not all Catholics are holy, there is no clash of rights, since the freedom of religion never prohibited you from saying that, it simply prohibits the government from establishing, favoring, regulating, or banning any religion.

The right to healthcare (and education, housing, property non-discrimination, etc) are all "social" (human) rights. They are generally positive rights, where the government has to provide something for the citizen. These rights are never absolute, in the sense that it is obvious that no one can receive all the education, health care, etc that money can buy. Also, these rights can clash with each other and with the classical rights: my right to self-expression can clash with your right to non-discrimination.

Sometimes, a right can be both 'positive' and 'negative'. For example, the right to "life" in the universal and European declaration of human rights (and implied in your declaration of independence) is mainly negative, in prohibiting the government of killing you in most circumstances, but can (and is) also interpreted positively as a positive duty to prevent certain loss of life and/or to investigate suspicious death. Similarly, the right to own property (e.g. article 17 UDHR but see also the 3d-5th amendment in the US Bill of Rights) is a negative right in prohibiting the government from taking your stuff (except through taxes, eminent domain etc.). However, it also implies a duty for the government to protect your property by banning and investigating theft etc, although the US Bill of Rights is phrased to exclude those duties by listing prohibitions against search, seizure, and quartering by the government, and does no list a "right to property".

Sources:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_obligations
- http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
- www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

Please... Israel was not "occupying" anyone between 1948 and 1967

Please...the entire state of Israel is an occupation of stolen territory. The theft may now be a fait accompli, but until we acknowlege that the Balfour Declaration, and the subsequent actions by the British Empire to build a Jewish state on stolen Arab territory for its own geopolitical purposes, was a crime against humanity, we're not going to make any progress sorting out the mess.

No, they're not, under international law. There is no way to justify Sharia law with human rights other than by abandoning the concept of human rights altogether.

In fact, most Islamic countries try to do exactly this because they don't have a legal construct by which human rights can be acknowledged. Under Sharia, humans don't have rights, god has rights, humans only have responsibilities to god.

This is why the UN Declaration of Human Rights: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

Is drastically re-written by most Islamic countries:
http://www.alhewar.com/ISLAMDECL.html

In the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights, one has the right to obey god without question or hesitation. Here, "rights" are derived from divine law, and though there is lip service paid to the freedom of religion, every country that has adopted it has interpreted it as intended, that is, that everyone has the right to obey the Koran, the hadith, and the sunnah.

did the USA actually sign up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

When it was voted on, the US voted yes.

However, as that part of the UN Yearbook 1948-1949 says (see p. 535), "the Declaration only marked a first step since it was not a convention by which States would be bound to carry out and give effect to the fundamental human rights; nor would it provide for enforcement", so I'm not sure what it would mean to "sign up"; I don't think there was a treaty to be signed in that case.

Well after some searching I found this for the year 2009:
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=ST/ADM/SER.B/755

In one year the United States contributed $598,292,101 to a UN budget of $2,498,618,698 which comes to 22% of the entire budget.

On the other hand, some sources like here explain that the funding is actually pretty complicated, as various departments of the federal government all contribute individually to various departments of the UN, up to as much as "$5.327 billion in 2005".

I'm not sure what the actual true percentage of UN funding is that comes from the US, but the fact remains that they aren't going to do anything substantial regardless of anything the US does.

What if the UN kicks the US out of the UN?
UN loses military and funding.

What?

Jordan, Bangladesh, even ZAMBIA contribute more to UN military operations than the USA.

Currently there are an embarrassing THIRTY US military personnel on UN deployments. Seriously.

National contributions to UN operations

This(ignore the facebook bullshit, not needed to just read it online) offers some interesting theoretical tidbits.

The UN explains the financial side.

"Peacekeeping soldiers are paid by their own Governments according to their own national rank and salary scale. Countries volunteering uniformed personnel to peacekeeping operations are reimbursed by the UN at a standard rate, approved by the General Assembly, of a little over US$1,028 per soldier per month."(Some countries pay an additional stipend to soldiers on peacekeeping operations, large enough to be significant in areas with low salaries)

I'd imagine that it's partly that Nepal is one of the countries poor enough that they can deploy peacekeepers for profit(the UN standard rate, per soldier, is paid in USD and identical across contributing nations, so it goes a hell of a lot further in some countries than in others, depending on local pay scales and willingness to accept casualties) and partly Nepal's history of fielding soldiers as part of (English speaking, which is convenient for international peacekeeping missions) British colonial activities.

All of you are missing the point.

http://americablog.com/2013/08/if-the-irs-gets-nsa-data-who-doesnt-this-is-a-data-trafficking-story.html

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/do-nsas-phone-internet-monitoring-programs-make-sense

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/06/breaking-fbi-nsa-massively-collecting-data-from-9-internet-companies/comment-page-2/

http://www.iowasource.com/health/2012_02_wifi.html

http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf

You all think ubiquitous wireless is for your convenience?

The should be developed an international mechanism of verifications of the Article #12 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Many countries have signed it. The should be international inspections of data centers, telephone companies, etc.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a12

Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

"Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Maybe the PATRIOT ACT has made you think these kinds of writings are particularly unamerican? Or you could just accept the fact that Snowden's acts are just as american as were the actions of founding fathers of the United States; who were also temporarily considered traitors.

Also consider that now Snowden has higher approval rating than... US Congress and Barack Obama

...and I'm sure, all over the world, Edward Snowden has a higher approval rating than NSA.

Now, how were you supposed "to institute a new Government"? Oh you can't. And if you'd even become interested about it the government would know about it; thanks to PRISM.

"whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

I think Snowden is well worth one Nobel Peace Prize.

Here is the reference you asked for. I can forgive you for not realizing you had this right, given how seriously US/UK some EU and commonwealth nation states are ignoring and openly pissing on basic human rights.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

A right to privacy is explicitly stated under Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.[14]

[14] United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved October 7, 2006 from http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.htm

politicians constantly remind us that driving is a privilege

Remind them that while the US is a member of the UN, its charter definitions are binding.

Not certain the argument that 'freedom of movement' equates to 'automobile license' would hold up in court.

Not that it matters, the UN hasn't kicked China out and they still require permits to move between districts. That strikes me as a tad bit more restrictive than calling a driver's license a 'privilege.' (A privilege now required to vote in Texas.)

politicians constantly remind us that driving is a privilege

Remind them that while the US is a member of the UN, its charter definitions are binding.

To be fair, on paper at least, anyone within the borders of the US is supposed to have the right to defend themselves by whatever means they have available.

I'm not sure I'd call it a "right", but self-defense is allowed in just about all countries :)

I cannot think of a more basic human right than the right to defend yourself from violence

Ironic, consider the fact that there is no such human right (see http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/).
You do however have right to free speech (article 19), a right protection from violence (article 3) and a right to privacy (article 12).

I cannot think of a more basic human right...

Please think harder, there are 30 articles covering things such as liberty, free speech, discrimination, etc... and none of them gives you a right to defend yourself.

I'm not saying that self defense shouldn't be allowed, but it's not a human right, and we have many human rights that are far more important.

Well... not "disagree", exactly, but I'd consider it up for some debate. Borlaug did indeed save hundreds of millions of lives from starvation, but it created other problems of overcrowding (lack of access to water, increased violence from too many people crammed in together, disease, etc.) In some places it simply shifted the problems of starvation to larger populations. The number of hungry people in the world is expected to hit a record billion people:

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=29231
http://www.wfp.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/600x400/photos/600_bis_Total_Hungry_People_2001-2009.jpg

I really don't intend this to diminish the sheer number of lives that Borlaug has saved, and some places have done much better in than others in taking advantage of the opportunity. For the past few decades the problem isn't really about quantity of food, per se, but rather the difficulty of getting it where it's needed despite local instability (including, just today, a murderous attack on UN aid personnel in Somalia).

But I do think that Borlaug's achievement doesn't reach its full capability without population control and decent government, and if we had those things Borlaug's extraordinary accomplishment might be unnecessary.

The Green Revolution saved billions from famine and disease. As scientific understanding of the process and technology improve leading to improved sustainability. Current systems are very wasteful; some 30-40% of all food ends up not being consumed. RIGHT NOW we produce enough for estimated stable long term population levels of the planet.

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/dsd_sd21st/21_pdf/agriculture_and_food_the_future_of_sustainability_web.pdf

In the meantime birth rates in human populations are declining due to the overall economic improvements. Some areas are even experiencing sub replacement birth rates.

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf

The Green Revolution saved billions from famine and disease. As scientific understanding of the process and technology improve leading to improved sustainability. Current systems are very wasteful; some 30-40% of all food ends up not being consumed. RIGHT NOW we produce enough for estimated stable long term population levels of the planet.

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/dsd_sd21st/21_pdf/agriculture_and_food_the_future_of_sustainability_web.pdf

In the meantime birth rates in human populations are declining due to the overall economic improvements. Some areas are even experiencing sub replacement birth rates.

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf

Predictions of Malthusian nightmares rarely seem to take birth control into account. We should keep in mind that effective hormonal birth control has only been widely available in the West since the seventies. In that short (yes, very short) amount of time it had to become both cheap enough and socially acceptable enough to make a demographic dent. We're only beginning to see the effects but even so 48% of the world's population lives in countries with sub-replacement fertility rates. Immigration props up most of the developed world demographically, but even so countries with some of the most advanced economies, like Germany and Japan, are experiencing a contraction of their populations. Indeed the latter, with its aversion to immigration, faces demographic collapse.

There's a lot of reason to be concerned about pressure of resources as the developing world grows and developing economies advance. But much of the increased pressure is caused by people taking on aspects of Western life--consumerism, purchase of electronic conveniences which become apparent necessities (cell phone, computers, etc), and the increasing use of cars. But aside from stable polities, few things make life more comfortable in the West than birth control. If there was a bit of lag time, and indeed a small amount, before widespread adoption of birth control in the West would make a demographic difference, why should we not expect developing countries to follow suit shortly?

So, Israel's justification for attack was an act of war by Egypt? Brilliant!!

So you're admitting that since blockades are an act of war, attacks in response to the blockades of Gaza (and now Iran) are totally justified by Israeli rules?

Brilliant!

Wrong again. First, it isn't a total blockade.

Of course it's a total blockade. Nothing gets in without Israel's approval - that's why they murdered people on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla for daring to bring in food and supplies.

the Palestinian Arabs in Gaza would not have been able to build a new shopping center

Ooo! A shopping mall! Have they rebuilt all the homes destroyed in Cast Lead? If you are shot by an IDF sniper for shits and giggles can you get a wheelchair promptly? How fast will your recovery be while you're being starved, I mean put "on a diet"?

Second, Gaza is not a nation state, but a territory. It shouldn't be attacking anyone. Any attacks coming from there are either direct aggression by the Hamas government, or terrorism

See, this is the problem with trying to justify the unjustifiable - you end up using ad hoc bullshit that will have you squawking with butthurt the second it's turned on you.

So:

If Arabs had done to Jewish settlers in 1947 what Israel has spent the last decades doing to the Palestinians, you would have been just fine with that because there was no Jewish nation-state at the time. You would have been okay with ethnic cleansing, Apartheid, periodic bombings, and fucking starving the Jews. Because there was no Jewish nation-state.

Squawk.

Then there's your other problem: your canard is out of date, since the U.N. voted to give Palestinians status as a non-member state. If you argue that vote changes nothing, then you're also arguing that Israel is not a legitimate state, just because settlers went before the U.N. in the late 40's to ask for nation status.

Squawk.

the Non Proliferation Treaty

Is batshit irrelevant to America's and Israel's illegal threats against Iran, as both the U.S. and Israel admit that Iran has no nuclear weapons program.

and its possession of nuclear weapons is unproven

Who do you think you're even trying to kid here? Mordechai Vanunu?

. Note that the issue between Israel and Iran is totally Iran's fault. Israel and Iran were allies when the Shah governed Iran. It was only after the Islamic revolution that the new Iranian government declared Israel an enemy to be destroyed. Israel did nothing to warrant that.

Even you know you're in outer space here. There's Israel - maker of dozens of first strikes and wars of choice - making constant threats against Iran - who hasn't attacked another country in two centuries. And you're citing the Shah, seriously? The brutal, torture loving dictator?

So, you continue to side with would-be genocidal aggressors and repeatedly condemn the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, often on specious grounds.

You mean the liberal democracy Iran had until it was destroyed by Israel's sugar daddies, the U.S. and Britain? Outer. Space. And calling Israel a "liberal democracy" is laughable on it's face when it's dependent on Apartheid to stay in power.

For some reason this comes to mind:

More bullshit canards, you mean? Uganda has never been friendly to gays, therefore there was nothin

And I disagree. The right to assemble in groups in public is a human right and therefore is not limited to citizens.
Have a look at Art 19 and 20: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/