Slashdot Mirror
UN Report Finds NSA Mass Surveillance Likely Violated Human Rights
An anonymous reader writes A top United Nations human rights official released a report Wednesday that blasts the United States' mass surveillance programs for potentially violating human rights on a worldwide scale. U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay also praised whistleblower Edward Snowden and condemned U.S. efforts to prosecute him. "Those who disclose human rights violations should be protected," she said. "We need them."
In particular, the surveillance programs violate Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The single greatest evil that mankind ever unleashed upon the world was a corrupt government.
We need more people like Snowden. And when they pop up, we should step up and defend them.
(Of course, all *I* am brave enough to do is post an AC comment on a geek forum....but....maybe somebody else will be brave enough to do what needs to be done).
I can understand very well why the UN might not have done this earlier - the US government would want to quash any positive PR for a man they consider to be a traitor, and I'm sure they can exert enough force on the UN to ensure this happens. I would not be at all surprised if that was why this report hadn't come out until now.
The question is, though, what made them decide to release it?
No. That means that the UN is now a terrorist organization and US will no longer give a shit about resolutions passed by it.
Remember when the UN complained about Guantanamo Bay? Well, this is similar.
Ah, the typical asshole American response.
The US helped form the UN. The US alternates between using the UN to further own ends, and decrying the UN if people refuse to blindly follow what the US wants.
Face it, the US has actively become the enemies of human rights and liberties over the last bunch of years.
The fact that you're a bunch of whiny, self-entitled cock-suckers who think you run the world is your problem.
The UN is a framework for countries to try to resolve issues diplomatically. Yes, it can be ineffective as blocs of countries drag their heels on stuff. But it's all we've got.
The US talks about international justice, but refuses to be a signatory to the ICC -- so that they can continue to commit war crimes and answer to nobody.
Fuck America. Fuck you.
You've become a banana republic with delusions of being the champions of rights and freedoms.
What a deluded bunch of assholes.
No, it just means that your country has more in common with countries like Iran or Soviet era Russia than you'd like to admit.
Did you know that the US is one of only 3 countries that haven't ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child? The other two are Somalia and South Sudan.
No. (...) US will no longer give a shit about resolutions passed by it.
The US never did give a shit about UN resolutions. It only cares that other countries do.
No, it just means that your country has more in common with countries like Iran or Soviet era Russia than you'd like to admit.
You haven't seen my anti-US-government rants, have you?
These days the U.S. Constitution would count as an anti-US-government rant so that's not exactly a distinguishing feature.
The founders of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights had, at the time, just faced down a global fascist hegemony, which made those rights seem just and proper and self-evident for great peace and wellbeing.
Now those founding states are becoming a global fascists hegemony ... they're not so keen on them.
Quelle suprise! :)
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Does the US Constitution specifically grant the government the power to interfere in X? If not then doing so is unconstitutional, because the constitution explicitly states (repeatedly, in several different ways) that the federal government has *only* those powers granted to it by the constitution. Which is why something as simple as banning alcohol required a constitutional amendment. You can thank legal gymnasts and an apathetic population for the steady expansion of federal powers beyond what has been explicitly granted. For example: despite the fact that Prohibition required a constitutional amendment to implement, the Supreme Court held that a similar ban on on marijuana was constitutional because it could theoretically be sold across state lines, and thus the federal government's legitimately granted power to regulate interstate commerce could be applied, even against individuals growing small quantities for their own consumption. You really want to tell me that's not a load of power-mongering BS? That line of reasoning gives the federal government control over *all* commerce within the US, completely gutting the initial restriction of only regulating interstate commerce without ever having to get a pesky constitutional amendment passed to expand it's powers.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.