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.

Comments

So now that the UN said it,

[digsbo]

does that mean I'm no longer an extremist for demanding my Constitutional rights be respected?

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[Anonymous Coward]

No. That means that the UN is now a terrorist organization and US will no longer give a shit about resolutions passed by it.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember when the UN complained about Guantanamo Bay? Well, this is similar.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[JMJimmy]

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.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[digsbo]

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?

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean that they'll be asking for their Nobel prize back?

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but you could try for refugee status in a country that respects its citizens. Not that it matters, because the US government seems to run most countries, it seems.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[JMJimmy]

If I have I wouldn't recognize it as you - I don't look at the usernames, just the comments.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[Anonymous Coward]

Central America is looking better and better.

Costa Rica might not be bad.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[Anonymous Coward]

It is for foreigners attempting to live there and make a living. Maybe as an ex-pat you wouldn't have the same issues though.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[Jane Q. Public]

If I have I wouldn't recognize it as you - I don't look at the usernames, just the comments.

I used to be the same way, until one user became abusive.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[Anonymous Coward]

The US has legitimate objections to the CRC. Around here we believe that things like homeschooling and closed adoptions are in the best interests of some children.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[some old guy]

Well played, AC. Well played.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[Opportunist]

That's different to the status ante... how?

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[Noah Haders]

who?

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[Anonymous Coward]

"Suck it, world." -- Dick Cheney

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[Noah Haders]

yeah why would snowden go to snowy russia and not to someplace nicer?

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you seen how that has been used to undermine parental rights in countries it has been ratified?

Thanks but no thanks.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[slashdice]

Anti-US-government rants are popular in Iran and Soviet era Russia, too.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[TheGratefulNet]

wrong. the US now does not care about anything but itself.

rights belong to the highest bidder or power holder.

that means: not you or me and certainly not some powerless speech-giving org.

the US is out of control. we all know this now and we all see it.

the question is: who has enough power to control the current top-dog and put him back in his dog-house?

THAT is the question. the US is not going to give in willingly.

I guess its at last a tiny half-step - having the ROW realize that the US is out of control and is violating the rights of, pretty much, anyone who dares try have a private thought or conversation.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong.

The US only gives a shit about UN resolutions when it comes to benefiting the military industrial complex and obtaining full world control for the New World Order.

When it comes to actually helping rectify the wrongs inflicted on the common man, you are right, the US does not give a single shit.

Nazi Germany sure is nice.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[gweihir]

You still are a terrorist for demanding any rights at all. After all, "rights" could make it harder to fight terrorists, so you clearly support them. As to how bad the problem already is, just look how hard it is to find any of the doubtless millions and millions of terrorists! They have near perfect camouflage and the war against them will be lost if they are not identified and killed soon!

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[Immerman]

Are you saying that you *do* like to admit how bad our government has gotten? I'm all for acknowledging it, but I most assuredly don't like it. Still I suppose some people do enjoy having something worthwhile to rant about.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[digsbo]

I like to bring it up. I'm happy to admit it. That's how it gets fixed. Or, at least, I know you can't fix it without talking about it.

I'm unhappy with the state of things. I'm even unhappier when people paper it over.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[Phreakiture]

In Soviet Russia, US Rants against YOU.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly the only chance for the US to be muzzled is if Russia, China and a few US allies bond together over this. Because:
1. Russia has more nukes so the nuke power dick waggling is off the table
2. China has more standing army
3. An ally signing on would begin to sway the views of other allies (not a shitty ally that no one cares exists like UK, Canada, AU someone with some clout)

or alternatively
no one lends the US any more money.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[reboot246]

You're an extremist if you think your rights supersede the purposes and principles of the U.N..

From the United Nations charter:
"These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

What are their purposes and principles? Only the U.N. knows for sure, but my observations have indicated that they're in favor of whatever the U.S. is against (and vice versa). I think the U.N. would be more believable if they located their headquarters in some place like Syria or China.

There's no doubt that the NSA has violated nearly everybody's rights, but don't rely on the U.N. to do anything about it.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[Vinegar Joe]

Do you really believe the UN thinks the US Constitution is a good thing?

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[Vinegar Joe]

These days the U.S. Constitution would count as an anti-US-government rant so that's not exactly a distinguishing feature.

Indeed.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[Vinegar Joe]

Take it up with Obama. After all, he's a constitutional scholar.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[murkwood7]

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.

There are a number of USA citizens who really, REALLY, need to understand this.

OoMGFs(TM, One of my greatist fears) is that some of these citizens do understand; they just don't care! The US Constitution is simply a dated concept that is getting in the way of ... I don't know; profits, power? Some other lame-ass failing of the human condition?

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[marauder68]

The US Constitution was written SPECIFICALLY to limit the power of government. It's been ignored by both political parties for over 100 years and low information voters keep re-electing the same idiots so the government gets away with ignoring it.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[riverat1]

Snowden didn't plan to stay in Russia, he was just passing through (on his way to Ecuador I think) when his passport was revoked. Then he was stuck in Russia.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[Solandri]

Remember when the UN complained about Guantanamo Bay? Well, this is similar.

Guantanamo Bay was (and is) a legal black hole. Past U.S. Supreme Court decisions held that not only U.S. Citizens but also foreigners on U.S. soil have Constitutional protection. So housing Taliban prisoners in U.S. prisons would've automatically granted them U.S. Constitutional rights, including the right to a speedy trial, the right to know what they're accused of, and a guarantee of legal counsel. Well guess what? Guantanamo Bay isn't on U.S. soil. It's on land leased from Cuba. Thus it falls outside the jurisdiction of that pesky SCotUS decision, and allowed the U.S. government to detain foreign nationals without following its own Constitution. That's the entire reason Bush chose it for the prison.

Most of the International and UN arguments against Guantanamo rested on International treaties concerning the treatment of prisoners of war. The problem is the preface for almost all those treaties defines combatants as people who don a uniform and wear a distinguishing emblem. The reason they make a big deal about this is to provide an incentive for soldiers to distinguish themselves from non-combatants (civilians), so as to reduce civilian casualties due to misidentification. If your soldiers want all those juicy protections for prisoners of war, they have to wear a uniform and emblems designating them as soldiers thus making it impossible for them to blend in among civilians.

Unfortunately, most if not all the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay never wore a uniform. The people drafting those treaties on the rules of war never really considered what would happen if a fighting force chose not to abide by the uniform requirement. They kinda assumed the protections were a big enough carrot that everyone would do it. This also makes it a bad idea to expand the protection for prisoners in those treaties to cover non-uniformed combatants, like many who are opposed to Guantanamo have naively advocated. If you do that then unless he's got an overdeveloped sense of honor, no soldier in his right mind would ever wear a uniform - it just makes him an easy target. And we'd devolve back to the pre-imperial chaos where wars were fought between two masses of people with no discrimination between combatants and civilians. Thus the Guantanamo prisoners fall through a crack in International law.

This isn't to say the prison at Guantanamo Bay is ok. I've never supported it and have called for it to be shut down since the beginning. I'm just saying both U.S. and International law don't quite cover the situation at Guantanamo (kinda like the guy stuck at an airport for 18 years because of the way International laws regarding entry visas and citizenship work). That makes it completely the opposite of this case, where there are laws protecting privacy in both U.S. (4th Amendment protection against warrantless searches) and UN (Article 12) that would appear to prohibit the NSA blanket surveillence.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[JMJimmy]

The US has legitimate objections to the CRC. Around here we believe that things like homeschooling and closed adoptions are in the best interests of some children.

There's a lot of noise around the subject but 99% of it is misunderstanding of law.

Regarding "closed adoptions" the CRC avoids using any language which attributes a biological connection between parent and child. They always use terms related to the "family" or to the legal status of the child. A child given up for adoption ceases the "familial" bond with the biological parent and the state then must look out for the best interests when placing the child with a new family or caring for it. This language allows for voluntary cessation of that relationship while protecting involuntary cessation.

Home schooling is similarly unaffected. Article 28, which people believe affects their ability to home school, simply don't understand that "home school" is a valid "school" under Article 28 so long as it is meet's the state's own educational standards. Meaning the state needs to monitor the child's educational development (usually done by a test once or twice a year) to make sure they are getting an education, but they do not have to force anyone into a particular institution.

There are similar concerns about the language of "child rights" vs "parental rights" thinking that the child's rights can somehow overrule the parent in things like searching a child's room, disciplinary actions, familial/cultural rules, etc. but these are absurd in a legal interpretation. The CRC goes out of its way to respect "applicable law" of the state. It leaves interpretation of "best interests", "appropriate", etc up to the individual states because no two will be identical and much of it is situational or subject to change over time. These definitions would normally be interpreted by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which may put some limitations on the state definitions but of course the US hasn't ratified that treaty either.

Either way, no international treaty can supersede the constitution (Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)) and the CRC only allows for "advisory" judgements by the ICJ so no one could actually force the US to do anything (including applying sanctions). It's all just fear mongering to justify political positions.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[jeIIomizer]

Well guess what? Guantanamo Bay isn't on U.S. soil.

This seems like one of those 'clever' loopholes that aren't really loopholes at all if you take into account the spirit of the constitution. Then it is a clear constitutional violation, just like the TSA, free speech zones, and all the other things the government tried to 'justify' using awful, awful logic.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[jeIIomizer]

Meaning the state needs to monitor the child's educational development (usually done by a test once or twice a year) to make sure they are getting an education, but they do not have to force anyone into a particular institution.

My state currently does not require that the state do anything, so this would affect homeschooling. Standardized tests are not only useless, but they are poison. Many people take the results seriously, but they just test for rote memorization and encourage people to teach to the test.

But you also said, ""home school" is a valid "school" under Article 28 so long as it is meet's the state's own educational standards." So, would anything really change, or am I misunderstanding something?

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[HiThere]

Considering that most of the casualties appear to be civilians, I'm not sure that there's any penalty for wearing a uniform...except that it costs extra money. So that logic fails to impress me. An artillery shell doesn't see the clothing of its target. and drones don't appear to either given the number of funerals that they've targeted. Unless, of course, they are intentionally targeting civilians because they are "soft targets".

In either case, the argument for not expanding the coverage fails, because civilians don't HAVE any extra advantage.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[Anonymous Coward]

Well guess what? Guantanamo Bay isn't on U.S. soil. It's on land leased from Cuba. Thus it falls outside the jurisdiction of that pesky SCotUS decision, and allowed the U.S. government to detain foreign nationals without following its own Constitution. That's the entire reason Bush chose it for the prison.

The US government is still bound by the constitution. As long as the government is on US soil they have to follow the constitution. Guantanamo bay is still a violation of the constitution. The people on site might not be violating it but the higher ups sure as hell does.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[HiThere]

I agree that frequent standardized tests are poison, but a yearly test for assessment is both reasonable and probably necessary.

Mind you, what I'm advocating isn't anything like the current government policy, which I agree with you is poison. It's more like things were where I lived in 1970. I suspect that the tests were mandated by the state rather than by the feds, and they weren't difficult (at least for me). And nobody even considered "teaching to the test".

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[jeIIomizer]

but a yearly test for assessment is both reasonable and probably necessary.

I disagree. It forces people who want to get away from the education system to participate in its nonsense. In addition, current tests are absolutely abysmal and useless.

And nobody even considered "teaching to the test".

People seem to have this strange view of the past. The US education system was always absolute garbage. It might have been slightly better in the past in some regards, but it was always about rote memorization, busywork, and being a one-size-fits-all 'solution.'

But again, my state currently doesn't force homeschoolers to take any sort of tests or do anything. I don't think you can get anymore homeschool-friendly, actually. If that changes, then homeschooling would indeed be affected, which you claimed it wouldn't be.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[jeIIomizer]

Oh, that wasn't even you that made that post. Nevermind.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations, you are now a terrorist.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[Anonymous Coward]

Only as defined by a terrorist government.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[TheGratefulNet]

so says an a/c ? really? you are more scared to comment with your ID than I am?

hey, if what I said makes me a terr-a-wrist(tm), then I'll accept that label. the label is now meaningless.

one wonders if the revolutionists who FOUNDED the US would be now called terrorists.

its meaningless. no more meaning than 'boogeyman'.

who really gives a shit, anyway. the US has lost all moral high ground over the last few decades and we are circling the drain, at this point.

I love what my country used to stand for. but now, its nothing that I would recognize as my own homeland, anymore.

and I give fuck-all who thinks what of me, for I am speaking the truth, here. and everyone with half a mind knows it.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[Anonymous Coward]

Take it up with Obama. After all, he's a constitutional scholar.

Damn him and his magical time machine.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[c6gunner]

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.

All I see is another difference: the UN criticizes the US while completely ignoring far, far worse abuse in Iran and Soviet era Russia.

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.

Oh no. You're telling me that the US hasn't ratified a worthless piece of paper which contains no actual enforcement mechanisms and would make zero difference to any US policies? That's horrible. Next you'll be telling me that nations which have ratified it don't actually do a damn thing to abide by it! Say it aint so!

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[Pseudonym]

Interestingly, the event described in the US national anthem would, under current law, be classified as a WMD attack.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[Pseudonym]

Only the U.N. knows for sure, but my observations have indicated that they're in favor of whatever the U.S. is against (and vice versa).

By "vice versa", do you mean that the UN is against whatever the US is in favour of, or do you mean that the US is against whatever the UN is in favour of?

The purpose of the United Nations is:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

This does seem to be contrary to the interests of the lobbying interests which run the US government, no?

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[JMJimmy]

The "test" isn't required, merely that the state is ensuring the child is getting what it considers to be a proper primary education (not even secondary - just primary, secondary education they actually encourage alternate forms)

How they determine that can take many forms, standardized tests, interviews, or the preferred method in my mind would be something akin to the "psycho-educational assessment" done to identify disabilities. It's not a test to memorize and grade - it compares you on individual functions and criteria as compared to everyone else who's taken that particular test. Prior knowledge might boost the odd score but there'd be no incentive to do so since it's not graded in the formal sense. If anything it would be a useful tool for parents who are homeschooling to identify areas of weakness that they may want to focus on or even strengths that they might use to focus their child's education on some potential careers which use a particular function.

So yes, it would "affect" parents in that they might have to do some paperwork but would protect kids from falling through the cracks and receiving inadequate/no primary education.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[JMJimmy]

It has been interpreted by that country's laws in certain ways, absolutely. It is not what it's made out to be though. Most of the rhetoric stems from ParentalRights.org and in particular this: http://www.parentalrights.org/...{550447B1-E2C1-4B55-87F1-610A9E601E45}

If you read through their citations though you'll notice they start off by mentioning the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties - the US has not ratified that treaty. Then they go on to quote the constitution...

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding

This is particularly interesting because the US has already ratified "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights". In doing so they declared that Articles 1-27 were not self-executing. This meant that congress had no obligation to implement the provisions in law. However, they did not make the exception of the remaining articles meaning they are self-executing (Medellin v. Texas).

Article 50: The provisions of the present Covenant shall extend to all parts of federal States without any limitations or exceptions.

This means that the Supreme Court as well as State legislatures are obliged to adhere to all the articles. This is further backed up by their statement of understanding:

(5) That the United States understands that this Covenant shall be implemented by the Federal Government to the extent that it exercises legislative and judicial jurisdiction over the matters covered therein, and otherwise by the state and local governments; to the extent that state and local governments exercise jurisdiction over such matters, the Federal Government shall take measures appropriate to the Federal system to the end that the competent authorities of the state or local governments may take appropriate measures for the fulfillment of the Covenant.

So what does that mean? Likely a court challenge to get the supreme court to apply something like the "Baker" principle (there is precedent for it):

The Baker decision thus establishes the principle that, in the process of statutory interpretation and in matters of judicial review, it is entirely appropriate to rely on provisions of international conventions which have not been incorporated into legislation but with which the State is presumed to have a will to be in compliance.

Once that is done articles 1-27 come into effect in practice:

Article 17

1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.

2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 18

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[JMJimmy]

It doesn't require an international enforcement mechanism. The enforcement is to come from within, with consideration by the local courts/legislatures of its interpretation and application. Sovereignty isn't ignored just because an international treaty is signed. It would be prohibitively complex and expensive to get everyone to comply 100% right away. A report/observations are made and the most egregious violations get the focus. Right now it's focused on Saudi Arabia's law where a child can be convicted as an adult and killed (they wait until they're 18 before killing them though) as well as some of Iran's laws - political pressure has already got Iran to recognize the Age of Majority in its law which was huge. Now it's just the most serious crimes which are still allowing capitol punishment of children.

Funnily enough, that's one of the US's objections to ratifying - they want to continue to kill minors for certain crimes.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[JMJimmy]

Guantanamo's prisoners status in the constitution is actually quite clear:

Article 3, Section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

The above gives jurisdiction, regardless of whether or not it is on US soil or a US citizen.

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

These national laws include:

  - No attacks on foreign nations, their citizens, or shipping, without either a declaration of war or letters of marque and reprisal.
  - Honoring of the flag of truce, peace treaties, and boundary treaties. No entry across national borders without permission of national authorities.
  - Care and decent treatment of prisoners of war.

Most importantly it includes:
  - Prohibition of enslavement of foreign nationals and international trading in slaves.

This gives specific provisions for the rights of non-US citizens. Said citizenship (or rather lack there of) was the basis for denying Guantanamo prisoners due process under the previous challenge. A challenge under the "laws of nations" would imbue at least a small section of rights to those individuals.

US 13th Amendment:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction

note the bolded part as it relates to the above bolded part.

Per United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931 (1988):

"Involuntary means `done contrary to or without choice' - `compulsory' - `not subject to control of the will.' [487 U.S. 931, 972]

        "Servitude means `[a] condition in which a person lacks liberty especially to determine one's course of action or way of life' - `slavery' - `the state of being subject to a master.'

Since they refuse to charge them with a crime they cannot claim the exemption in slavery laws - if they do charge them with a crime they are subject to the rights under US law which they don't want either.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[JMJimmy]

I should clarify that statement a bit...

US constitution prohibits "after the fact" creation of laws and congress failed to define a special category for these individuals in law before taking them. Because they were not legally defined they would have to fall into one of the following definitions:

1) Citizen (or a subset with similar rights like landed immigrants)
2) foreign national (or a subset of that designation)
3) a combatant subject to the Geneva Convention

They couldn't allow 1 or 3 to occur due to legal implications so the only remaining classification if foreign national. the "Laws of Nations" is one of the few areas in the constitution which guarantees foreign nationals any rights. By holding a foreign national indefinitely without charge it becomes involuntary servitude. The moment they charge them they fall under one of the other categories.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[JMJimmy]

Side note: the test I describe doesn't test any particular subject, just developmental functions. In that way it's unbiased to subject matter beyond basic skills (ie: no issues around religious or cultural teaching but one still needs to learn to read/write/do arithmetic/etc.)

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[JMJimmy]

He was tricked into going there.

http://venturebeat.com/2014/05...

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[c6gunner]

It doesn't require an international enforcement mechanism.

Yeah, it kinda does.

The enforcement is to come from within

Oh that's rich. Like, instead of having a legal system, let's just tell all the gangs how we want them to behave, and let them enforce our desire on their own.

Funnily enough, that's one of the US's objections to ratifying - they want to continue to kill minors for certain crimes.

This is, of course, simply a lie. The US stopped executing minors years ago. They've also gone a step beyond, and abolished life-sentences for minors.

The reason the US hasn't bothered to ratify it is because:

a) The ratification process is kind of a pain in the ass; and
b) It wouldn't change anything, so there's no point. It's a purely symbolic gesture.

But by all means, keep pretending that Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama both refused to ratify it because they want to keep executing children. I'm sure all the Democrats will love that explanation :)

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[JMJimmy]

It doesn't because it's a covenant - it's foundation is in the rule of law. If a country isn't respecting the rule of law then no legal treaty, including those with international enforcement, will mean a damn.

It's very much getting all the worlds "gangs" to agree to something and nudging them along to where they ought to be. With each successive nudge and treaty ratification the rule of law becomes stronger and eventually everyone gets on the same page (or close enough for it not to be a significant issue)

As to the objection, you're right I should have said "was" - not present tense. Roper v. Simmons got rid of the death penalty for minors in the US in 2005. Oddly enough in the closing reasoning for the decision the court stated:

Respondent and his amici have submitted, and petitioner does not contest, that only seven countries other than the United States have executed juvenile offenders since 1990: Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and China. Since then each of these countries has either abolished capital punishment for juveniles or made public disavowal of the practice. In sum, it is fair to say that the United States now stands alone in a world that has turned its face against the juvenile death penalty.

1990... interesting year... right it was the year the CRC came into effect! Amazing that a toothless, purely symbolic, pointless gesture managed to help change US law. *note I did say help, it was obviously not the only reason given

They've also gone a step beyond, and abolished life-sentences for minors.

I won't call you a liar, merely misinformed: mandatory sentences of the death penalty for minors is abolished as are life terms for non-homicide crimes. Homicide crimes can still come with a life sentence subject to Miller v. Alabama 567 U.S. ___ (2012) which requires consideration of the defendant and the details in determining sentence. See the ruling itself or below is the SCOTUSBlog text on the case:

Plain English Summary: In a series of decisions dating back to 1988, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that youths under age 18 who commit crimes must not necessarily get as severe a punishment as adults who committed the same kind of crimes. Among other rulings, the Court has forbidden the death penalty for minors who commit murders, and it has barred a sentence of life in prison without a chance of release for minors who commit crimes in which the victim is not killed. In this new ruling, the Court avoiding imposing such a flat ban on life without parole for a minor who commits murder, but it did rule out such a sentence as a mandatory requirement in all such cases. It said, though, that it does not expect very many youths under age 18 to get such a sentence that essentially would require them to stay in prison until they die.

As to the political bias, I'm neither Democrat nor Republican. The facts are that Bill Clinton's administration signed the CRC, Bush ratified 2 of the optional protocols, and Obama stated his intent, but given the current climate it's unlikely that he will as it's better not to submit it than to have it fail.

"It's important that the United States return to its position as a respected global leader and promoter of Human Rights. It's embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land. I will review this and other treaties and ensure that the United States resumes its global leadership in Human Rights."

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[digsbo]

>

I love what my country used to stand for. but now, its nothing that I would recognize as my own homeland, anymore.

and I give fuck-all who thinks what of me, for I am speaking the truth, here. and everyone with half a mind knows it.

I could not possibly agree more. I'm tired of being polite to the soccer moms of both sexes who raise eyebrows when I do something as simple as point out how easily some TSA directive can be defeated, and who roll their eyes when I complain about my government violating my rights. Thank God my wife sees the value in saying the truth out loud, and hasn't demanded I go along to get along with all this horse shit.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[jeIIomizer]

So yes, it would "affect" parents in that they might have to do some paperwork but would protect kids from falling through the cracks and receiving inadequate/no primary education.

I'd rather the state just stay out of it, rather than try to 'protect' children from not receiving what it thinks is a 'proper' education.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[digsbo]

Nope, but I believe the average moron who doesn't understand either will ignorantly assume there is more legitimacy to the UN criticizing something the US does than ME criticizing the same thing.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[JMJimmy]

I might be convinced of that regarding secondary education. Primary education though, not a chance. Aside from the basic need for literacy, basic math skills, and such in our society, there's the child welfare aspect. If a simple once a year assessment of a child's well being can prevent or stop a single William Flynn Walker, Order of the Solar Temple/Twelve Tribes, LoReyna Barea, M. L. Lloyd III, Lora/Aubrey Thomas's 6 kids or... sadly I could go on for some time. To be clear, I'm not suggesting all home schooled parents are committing criminal acts - simply that because they are home schooled they are more likely to be isolated and the potential for long term abuse/neglect/exploitation/etc is significantly increased (not the chance of abuse, just the chances of it going undetected).

I'm not suggesting huge intrusions or dictating what's taught - just making sure the children are safe and actually being educated to a minimum standard (that does not conflict with beliefs).

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[TechnoJoe]

the US is out of control. we all know this now and we all see it.

As an US citizen, I agree.

the question is: who has enough power to control the current top-dog and put him back in his dog-house?

The Founding Fathers provided two methods to amend the US Constitution. The first one is the one that has always been used. Congress passes an amendment by 2/3 of each house, and 3/4 of the states ratify it. However, the Founding Fathers asked, "What happens if the federal government is able to aquire too much power? Surely Congress would not pass an amendment to limit itself." They put in a second method for this case. 2/3 of the States can call for a Convention attended by state legislators, and whatever they pass gets ratified by 3/4 of the states. This takes the federal government completely out of the loop.

This has never before happened in US history, and it is starting to happen now. http://conventionofstates.com/ Believe me, the people who are most concerned about the US government being out of control are the citizens of the US. We realize that if the government can do it to you, it can do it to us.

The real question is: Are there enough US citiizens who think like I just said to pull the US government back from the brink? Or have too many of us gotten caught up in reality tv shows to care about the loss of freedom? When this effort succeeds or fails, you will have your answer.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[Sciath]

As one American recently declared on TV, "There's no law against being stupid."

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[jeIIomizer]

I might be convinced of that regarding secondary education. Primary education though, not a chance. Aside from the basic need for literacy, basic math skills, and such in our society, there's the child welfare aspect.

It is extremely unlikely that someone would willingly pull their child from schools (which are often seen as little more than daycare by many people) just to do nothing. Homeschooling parents tend to care more about their children's educations than our worthless schools do. This is especially true when it comes to the absolute basics.

If a simple once a year assessment of a child's well being can prevent or stop a single William Flynn Walker, Order of the Solar Temple/Twelve Tribes, LoReyna Barea, M. L. Lloyd III, Lora/Aubrey Thomas's 6 kids or... sadly I could go on for some time.

So you're going to list extremely unlikely scenarios and use it to justify your restrictions? The 'If it saves just one...' mentality is poisonous. That's what leads to the TSA, the Patriot Act, and a whole host of other nonsense. Guess what? It isn't any more rational when the situation involves children.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[jeIIomizer]

Otherwise, a grand majority of the products of the education system would be in trouble.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[david_thornley]

There is no "US education system" that can be said to be good or bad. There are numerous different education systems, with certain commonalities.

If nobody makes sure a child is properly home-schooled, then how do you know they're getting some sort of decent education? If it's the child's right to education, and it is to be enforced, somebody needs to see that right is upheld among home schooling as well as more institutional schooling.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[jeIIomizer]

There is no "US education system" that can be said to be good or bad. There are numerous different education systems, with certain commonalities.

Actually, I can say right here that they're abysmal.

If nobody makes sure a child is properly home-schooled, then how do you know they're getting some sort of decent education?

They're not getting a decent education from the US education system (a term you don't like, apparently), that's for sure.

But as for how you can tell, you can't.

If it's the child's right to education, and it is to be enforced, somebody needs to see that right is upheld among home schooling as well as more institutional schooling.

I think it's more important that the government stay the hell away from homeschoolers. Their one-size-fits-all rote memorization approach to education is poison, and I'd rather not have them trying to corrupt homeschooling with their flawed standards.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[JMJimmy]

http://hsinvisiblechildren.org... nearly 400 or about 28 per year based solely on news articles and a couple databases.

Lets look at just the fatalities though. I counted 99 in total. There were about 4000 school aged child deaths due to neglect/abuse in the US during that period. That means even based on the woefully incomplete data regarding home schooled kids they've already managed to identify a fatality rate 20% higher than the national average over a 15 year period. That's not insignificant.

(numbers based on US Child Maltreatment statistics and assumed average of 1.5 million home schooled students which is higher than the actual average meaning the % would increase if calculated more accurately)

I agree "if it saves just one" can be taken way too far - especially when it comes to adults. Children are a different matter. They deserve special consideration not only for moral reasons but also for simple economics, the more chance you can give a child to succeed the less chance society is going to have to pay for them (be it welfare or prison etc).

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[jeIIomizer]

nearly 400 or about 28 per year based solely on news articles and a couple databases.

So, exactly as I said, then? Again, I don't buy the 'If it saves just one' bullshit logic; I'm someone who cares about freedom over safety, and a situation involving children is no different. I don't care for banning/placing restrictions upon something merely because it could be abused. You're not going to win me over with such logic.

I generously assumed that those statistics are actually correct and wrote that in response. Whether they are correct is an entirely different matter, and I almost never trust them.

Children are a different matter.

Incorrect. I disagree with ageism, and I care exactly as much about children as I do about adults.

They deserve special consideration not only for moral reasons

Nope. No more so than with adults.

but also for simple economics

What a vague argument. That can be used any restriction. In fact, it could be used to argue *in favor* for unrestricted homeschooling.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[david_thornley]

I closely monitored the education of one particular child from kindergarten through twelfth grade in the local public school system. While there were problems, it was overall a very good education, leaving him well prepared for rigorous college work. This wasn't a carefully picked public school system either; it's in one of the center cities of a metropolitan area, and was basically where I lived (although the school district supplied buses to get to a high school further away in the district, since the high schools had different programs and everybody could apply for the program they thought served their child best).

Except that I didn't need to describe that, did I, since all involved schools were and are in the US, and there is a US educational system of pretty much uniform quality?

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[jeIIomizer]

I closely monitored the education of one particular child from kindergarten through twelfth grade in the local public school system. While there were problems, it was overall a very good education, leaving him well prepared for rigorous college work.

The fact that you think it was important to note that he was prepared for college, as if that's what the goal of education should be, indicates to me that you might not know what education is at all.

Rote memorization is not education. A one-size-fits-all solution is no solution at all. Teaching to the test is not education. Giving out worksheets that have you doing the same type of problem over and over again (e.g. "Find the missing side of the triangle using the Pythagorean theorem.") is not education. If none of those things were true of any of the schools (extremely unlikely), then that kid was just extremely lucky. More likely, though, your idea of education is off. Even if a teacher is 'good' and wants to give students a 'good' education, awful standards and bureaucracy usually get in the way.

Except that I didn't need to describe that, did I, since all involved schools were and are in the US, and there is a US educational system of pretty much uniform quality?

A grand majority of schools in the US are worse than garbage. That is simply a fact.

Re:So now that the UN said it,

[jeIIomizer]

Also, colleges are quickly becoming nothing more than poor imitations of trade schools, instead of places where people go to increase their understanding of the universe around them. Too many losers who shouldn't go to college are getting loans and grants and consequently destroying the environment even for people who care about more than just getting a job. Colleges then seek to satisfy these people by becoming more like trade schools, and you end up with the worst of both worlds. This disease has even spread to some universities.

So to say that colleges provide rigorous work is becoming less true with each passing day, though most were never anything special to begin with.

Agreed.

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

Re:Agreed.

[watcher-rv4]

Wish I had mod points.

Re:Agreed.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

To agents in the NSA: It doesn't matter if 999 of 1000 of you are honest. All it takes is one G. Gordon Liddy type who ignores requirements for warrants to listen in on political opponents, and the whole thing is worthless. Possibly that is also the real intent, easy obfuscation of ultimate corruption.

Known historical democracies collapse when they "temporarily" give emergency powers to someone. Greece, Rome, Germany 80 years ago.

And you're participating in this modern panopticon as a rube while someone, maybe next to you, spies for a party or powerful faction.

Re:Agreed.

[jeIIomizer]

To agents in the NSA: It doesn't matter if 999 of 1000 of you are honest.

If they were honest, they wouldn't be collecting everyone's data to begin with. That in itself is a violation of people's liberties.

Re:Agreed.

[gstoddart]

If they were honest, they wouldn't be collecting everyone's data to begin with. That in itself is a violation of people's liberties.

Except that the response you get from Americans is "well, fuck it, as long as it's someone else's rights, who cares?".

Which more or less forces the rest of the world to decide that the rights of Americans isn't their damned problem. Because the rest of the world doesn't see their rights as secondary to those of Americans.

Re:Agreed.

[bigpat]

Except that the response you get from Americans is "well, fuck it, as long as it's someone else's rights, who cares?".

Actually, the NSA is actively violating the constitutional rights of every single American by ordering all the companies we do business with to hand over all their records on us. It matters because when the rule of law, especially our fundamental rights, are not respected by those with the highest responsibility to uphold them, then the rule of law breaks down and then we get the rule of the strongest factions and the elimination of freedom for all. We might already be there, but I hope it is not too late to restore the rule of law without a new civil war or a new revolution.

Re:Agreed.

[x_t0ken_407]

Probably the most important comment on this story...where are my damn mod points...

Re:Agreed.

[ultranova]

To agents in the NSA: It doesn't matter if 999 of 1000 of you are honest. All it takes is one G. Gordon Liddy type who ignores requirements for warrants to listen in on political opponents, and the whole thing is worthless.

It takes one agent who gets paid in gold and 999 who get paid in security and convenience. The exact same as with police or Catholic Church's abuse scandal. That's the way systematic corruption works: one bad apple didn't make the tree rotten, the tree was always rotten and the bad apple just gave it a chance to demonstrate that. And all it takes is one Snowden to blow it all wide open.

Re:Agreed.

[AHuxley]

Re "If they were honest, they wouldn't be collecting everyone's data to begin with. That in itself is a violation of people's liberties."
They have to collect it all to know who to target with software or hardware to get around individual use of encryption.
Collecting all data finds out why a person is interesting in encryption. Then seek the plain text thanks to tame telcos, OS, standards.
You read up on or show an interest in TOR, your ip is noted for some further consideration. How do they know you looked at TOR? Collect it all.
Not all telcos and web 2.0 sites have plain text within their interconnects. They have to collect it all to get past encryption to some point where plain text point exists in a network.
By collect they don't want you to understand the idea of a person reading, listening, watching. Just all in storage and fast sorting. Once all the hops to friends of friends, calls and internet activity are fully reconstructed then more tasks are considered.

Re:Agreed.

[Anonymous Coward]

"We might already be there, but I hope it is not too late to restore the rule of law without a new civil war or a new revolution."

In my mind, we are clearly already 'there'. American's in general don't seem to care that much, and probably won't until it is 'too late'.

Re:Agreed.

[jeIIomizer]

They have to collect it all to know who to target with software or hardware to get around individual use of encryption.

Then their jobs are unconstitutional. It's like saying that the police have to break into everyone's homes in order to better find criminals. Not like they care, though.

Re:Agreed.

[strikethree]

Except that the response you get from Americans is "well, fuck it, as long as it's someone else's rights, who cares?".

Which more or less forces the rest of the world to decide that the rights of Americans isn't their damned problem. Because the rest of the world doesn't see their rights as secondary to those of Americans.

You know what? I am an American. I can only assume you are not. You are partially correct in your post:

I do not care in the least that my government is spying on you. The reverse of that is that I do not care that your government is spying on ME.

I do care if your government is spying on you. I do care if my government is spying on me.

The laws of your government can not really effect me unless your government invades my home. The laws of my government can not affect you (this appears to be changing somewhat) without invading your home.

I assume your government has laws against your government spying on you. My government has laws against my government spying on me. Sharing information is the same as spying directly with the added charge of conspiracy.

Your government does not have laws about spying on me and my government does not have laws about spying on you. Even if we objected in principal, there is nothing to actually stop each government from spying on another government's citizens other than the governments themselves.

In other words, if you do not want the NSA to spy on you, get your government to do something about it. Mandate secure protocols, invade America, something. Expecting the NSA to not spy on you is absurd on its face. For myself, I think it is a HUGE waste of money for my government to spy on you but that is my only absolute objection to it.

I do object to my government spying on you in a general social sense but I can be easily convinced to not care if there is the slightest whiff of danger to an American citizen and spying on you, a non-American, could alleviate that danger.

And again, the reverse is true. It is not generally considered nice for GCHQ to monitor me while I am visiting Thailand but it is really not a big deal to me if they are... and it is a HUGE waste of their money.

Ultimately, I think pervasive monitoring anywhere anywhen should be outlawed. Now, the people in my government can blackmail or otherwise nefariously influence your government and the reverse is true too. If your government is sweeping up everything about the people in America, your government could dramatically affect political discourse too. Perhaps your government, through pervasive spying, is who decided to take down Eliot Spitzer... this article says no: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

But you see my point, yes?

The U.N. Finds...

[holostarr]

And not a single flying fuck was given. U.N., what a joke...

Re:The U.N. Finds...

[Anonymous Coward]

And not a single flying fuck was given. U.N., what a joke...

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.

Re:The U.N. Finds...

[Anonymous Coward]

Calm down there, buddy. Not all of us Americans are freedom-hating, self-righteous morons.

Re: The U.N. Finds...

[C0R1D4N]

Become? Read your history. The federal govt was a force for good during a four year period 1942-45. Every other point in our history we have been bad guys. And even at our height of valor we nuked two cities.

Re:The U.N. Finds...

[kuzb]

Except you don't run your country. He's angry at the people who do and I can't say that I blame him too much.

Re:The U.N. Finds...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeing which politicians were electable and have been elected the last decade and a half, that must be a minority.

Re:The U.N. Finds...

[khr]

U.N., what a joke...

In the future they'll just turn it into low rent housing anyway.

Re: The U.N. Finds...

[Anonymous Coward]

Eisenhower was not all that bad.

Re:The U.N. Finds...

[ElusiveJoe]

the US has actively become the enemies of human rights and liberties over the last bunch of years.

Every government is the enemy of human rights and liberties.

Re:The U.N. Finds...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't confuse the US with the US government ... The US government is all those things you say ... the US are the people suffering under that government.

Re:The U.N. Finds...

[holostarr]

First of all I'm not American, so much for assuming. Secondly, I just stated my feeling since how else is one suppose to feel about U.N. when they are essentially useless, I mean look at everything going on in places such as Gaza, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Ukraine. I would love to believe that U.N. is some benevolent entity that punishes evil and fights for justice and equality, but that's just not the case.

Re: The U.N. Finds...

[oodaloop]

There are no bad guys. There are no good guys. Life is not a Hollywood movie.

Re: The U.N. Finds...

[aralin]

Read your history, they intentionally bled their allies out of all cash to become economic super power after the war and were pissed off they even have to join in 1942 because of the damn public opinion. Even so they delayed any serious military action until 1944, when it was basically over and they just came in the prevent Russia from taking over too much of Europe and protect their own interest and get a free piece of Germany. Not such a good guys the way I see it.

Re:The U.N. Finds...

[aralin]

Fuck you and your excuses. It's not us, it's them. Fuck you. Do something about it. It is done in your name so either accept the blame or make a change.

Re:The U.N. Finds...

[kackle]

Fuck America. Fuck you.

You mean "Team America, fuck yeah!"

I'm just trying to add some levity; we know we suck.

Re: The U.N. Finds...

[Megol]

Bullshit. Good or bad is just a point of view. Nazis thought they were the divine force of good doing their historic duty to build civilizations and conquering the untermenchen that was created to serve as slave labor.
Both before, during and after the US (as well as all other states) did things most would now consider good and other things people now would consider outright evil.

Re: The U.N. Finds...

[Anonymous Coward]

Become? Read your history. The federal govt was a force for good during a four year period 1942-45. Every other point in our history we have been bad guys. And even at our height of valor we nuked two cities.

Tell that to US citizens of Japanese ancestry that were forced into internment camps and stripped of their rights and property for committing no crime.

Re: The U.N. Finds...

[Anonymous Coward]

This. Sometimes people make poor decisions. At any time, though, they can start making good decisions. Understanding this is important for peace. Seems so obvious, but it's competing against an entrenched way of thinking from a long history of violent tribal interactions (that violence is justified against "bad guys").

Re: The U.N. Finds...

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no bad guys. There are no good guys.

When people engage in the activities that the US government and the various super-rich have been engaging in, they are most assuredly bad guys. There may be no squeaky-clean good guys in the Hollywood sense, but there are a lot of people who are better -- some a little, some a lot -- than the very-clearly-bad guys.

Re: The U.N. Finds...

[Anonymous Coward]

they intentionally bled their allies out of all cash

Not "all" cash of course, but yes, they provided arms and men to allies.

Even so they delayed any serious military action until 1944, when it was basically over...

Thanks to the manufacturing support they provided until then. And even this ignores battles such as the Battle of the Coral Sea (1942), the Battle of Midway (1942), and so on.

Re:The U.N. Finds...

[polar red]

bullshit. big money / big corp is, but in the US's case, that's the same. And they're infecting the EU and its members as well now.

Re: The U.N. Finds...

[DNS-and-BIND]

I suggest reading REAL history. Since 2009, criticizing the US government has been confirmation that you're a racist. Have you checked your privilege lately? But since you brought it up:

As late as surrender time-even after the A-bombs had been dropped-a staff lieutenant colonel, related to the War Minister himself, was fervently convinced that even if the whole Japanese race were all but wiped out, its determination to preserve the National Polity would be forever recorded in the annals of man; whereas a people who sacrificed their will upon the altar of physical existence could never deserve resurrection. It would be useless for the people to survive the war, anyhow, if the structure of the State itself were destroyed. It was better to die than to seek ignominious "safety".

At a climactic last Imperial Conference, War Minister Anami was still talking about going on with the war, of meting out a terrible blow to the enemy and achieving a good opportunity to end the war. Japan must press forward courageously, seeking Life in Death: certain victory was not assured, but neither was utter defeat. The terrain was working in favor of the defenders, and so was the inflexible national unity. But just in case a massive blow against the enemy proved not possible, it seemed appropriate for the name of Nippon to be inscribed forever in history by the annihilation of her 100 million loyal subjects, etc., etc. And tears welled into the eyes of the earnest War Minister.

When the Emperor, by a thrilling act of personal courage, opted for peace-and surrender-he too was weeping. He reminded his stunned auditors that ever since the outbreak of the war there had been frequent cases when Army and Navy actions differed from plans. Now the armed forces were preparing for decisive battle in the homeland and were claiming that the prospects of victory were satisfactory.

He was profoundly troubled, continued the Emperor. What would happen if Japan plunged into decisive battle under such circumstances? The entire race would be obliterated, and this would be a betrayal of the trust of ancestors and the duty toward posterity, lest Japan never again rise. Continuation of the war, then, could only serve to cripple Japan, extinguish civilization, and bring misfortune to mankind.

The Japanese Emperor's decision to end the war, under enormous external and internal pressure, obviated the American landings and the hemorrhage that was bound to occur soon on the beaches of Miyazaki, Satsuma, and Ariake. Not only would five US ground divisions, etc., be saved from the destruction at sea which the Japanese resolutely promised them, but untold thousands of Japanese would not die either-such as squadrons of kamikaze pilots and sailors with one way tickets to the shrine of heroes at Yasukuni; or the women and children clutching pitiful staves and bamboo spears.
-- Dr. Alan C. Coox, "Olympic vs. Ketsu-Go", Marine Corps Gazette, August 1965, Vol. 49, No. 8.

August 5, 1963

Dear Kup:
I appreciated most highly your column of July 30th, a copy of which you sent me.
I have been rather careful not to comment on the articles that have been written on the dropping of the bomb for the simple reason that the dropping of the bomb was completely and thoroughly explained in my Memoirs, and it was done to save 125,000 youngsters on the American side and 125,000 on the Japanese side from getting killed and that is what it did. It probably also saved a half million youngsters on both sides from being maimed for life.
You must always remember that people forget, as you said in your column, that the bombing of Pearl Harbor was done while we were at peace with Japan and trying our best to negotiate a treaty with them.
All you have to do is to go out and stand on the keel of the Battleship in Pearl Harbor with the 3,000 youngsters underneath it who had no chance whatever of saving their lives. That is true of two or three other battleships that were sunk in Pearl Ha

Re: The U.N. Finds...

[Anonymous Coward]

The federal govt was a force for good during a four year period 1942-45.

You mean that time that we rounded up all the people of Japanese descent (or the Chinese, or Korean, or whatever, they all look the same) and put them in internment camps? Yeah, we were doing some real good back then.

Re: The U.N. Finds...

[C0R1D4N]

You would be hard pressed to find a sane man arguing any genocide is good. I spoke only that from an outsider's point of view that the only war we can truly claim moral high ground in is WW2. The revolution could have been easily dealt with peacefully and while during the civil war fighting to free the slaves was noble, conquering the south to do it was not and we robbed their people of self-determination

Re:The U.N. Finds...

[blue9steel]

Every government is the enemy of human rights and liberties.

Even if that were true there are no alternatives.

Re: The U.N. Finds...

[Anonymous Coward]

As his sentence said "after the war" I think they might be referring to the Bretton Woods System:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system

Re:The U.N. Finds...

[whistlingtony]

Hey, we're not a BANANA republic.... Come on. Sheesh. :D

Re:The U.N. Finds...

[whistlingtony]

You say that, but I don't think it's necessarily true... There are a lot of governments that seem to do a much better job of respecting the rights of their citizens than the US does.

Re: The U.N. Finds...

[Anonymous Coward]

... height of valor we nuked two cities ...

Hence the Nuremburg trials were staged to tell everyone "Here are the bad guys"! What great PR.

Re: The U.N. Finds...

[HiThere]

Life is not a Hollywood move, but there are good guys and bad guys. Not many of either, most are somewhere in between, and there are more good guys than bad guys, but one bad guy can do more damage than 100 good guys can repair. And the US feds seem to prefer to hire and promote badish guys...the worse, the stronger the preference.

Re: The U.N. Finds...

[HiThere]

Sorry, but there are points of view (currently unpopular) from which genocide is considered virtuous. The Romans would have had no problem with it, if they didn't need the slave labor. (But consider what they did to Carthage. The only work they preserved was a treatise on how to control slaves.)

It's difficult to come up with a moral code that is both absolute, and that preserves the values we consider proper. E.g., I generally consider lying a immoral action, but there are circumstances where I would consider a lie the lesser evil. You can't win this one by an appeal to natural law, either, because chimpanzees wage intentional war on other, weaker, groups of chimpanzees. Also some entire species of ant have evolved specifically to operate as slavers. You've got to win this one by an appeal to a "higher morality", which is damnably difficult to pin down as anything more than "This is what I feel is right." (or possibly "This is what god told me to do.").

Re:The U.N. Finds...

[HiThere]

Every government is the enemy of human rights and liberties.

Yes, that's true. But governments aren't the only enemies of human rights and liberties. And frequently governments are less vile enemies and act to keep those others in check. The problem in the US is that those other enemies of human rights and liberties have purchased the government. I don't think this is true everywhere. There are places where the government itself is the major enemy. There also are, or were, places where there is a kind of balance.

Re:The U.N. Finds...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you cannot imagine them does not mean that this is so.

Re:The U.N. Finds...

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember when the U.S. tried to invade Canada? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Canada_%281775%29

Yea, the U.S. was never a good guy by any measure. As I see it the U.S. is like a spoiled brat that got his way for far too long and has gotten a taste for it, it just needs to be bent over and beaten the ever living shit out of it until it learns what 'justice' and 'freedom' truly mean.

Re: The U.N. Finds...

[Anonymous Coward]

Genocide is perfectly fine, we should eliminate all the jews, ragheads, blacks, whites, yellows, spicks, facists, communists, budhists in this world. Kill them all I say.

Re: The U.N. Finds...

[david_thornley]

The US didn't start flat-out giving military equipment to Britain before it had run mostly out of its dollar reserves. The US helped the Brits to a war effort maybe 20% more powerful than they could have managed on their own, near as I can tell. The US gave stuff to the Soviet Union and various other countries. This wasn't entirely altruistic, but it wasn't a plan to deliberately drain the British economy, and the other major allies were basically broke anyway. What catapulted the US into a position as the economic superpower was that US industry was pretty well untouched by war, unlike in Europe and Japan.

The US was actually in the naval war against Germany from September 1941, although there was no formal declaration. I'm not sure who you're saying was pissed off, since the declarations of war were almost unanimous. People don't really want to go to war, but they will accept it if necessary (or if duped by leaders into thinking it's necessary).

The US was toeing off against the whole Japanese Navy in the first half of 1942, and by the end of the year had basically gutted it as a fighting force and had stopped Japanese expansion in the Pacific. In Europe, the US was hindered by a great deal of unpreparedness, the expansion of the US Army being quite comparable to the prewar expansion of the German Army. It did not engage in ground operations until the end of 1942, and did not seriously engage German ground forces until 1943. As of 1943, a combined US/British offensive had succeeded in knocking Italy out of the war and securing airbases in southern Italy. Also in 1943, US strategic air forces hit Germany pretty hard, causing a major diversion of German fighters from the actual battlefronts. It's really hard to see how, given the state of prewar US readiness and the Battle of the Atlantic, the US could have mounted what you call serious military action before 1944.

So, while the US record is hardly spotless, I'd have to consider the US one of the good guys.

Re:The U.N. Finds...

[david_thornley]

I can imagine no government being successful. Heck, Marx did, government having withered away in his socialist utopia. L. Neil Smith wrote a series of novels about his libertarian utopia. Lots of people have imagined peaceful anarchies.

What I'm short on is examples where there has been a successful anarchy on any reasonable scale. Got some?

Gimme a f 'ing break

[Anonymous Coward]

How about a hot poker up the ass or female genital mutilation. That's violating human rights, but the UN really doesn't have an issue with that.

Re:Gimme a f 'ing break

[Sique]

It does. It routinely condemns it.

Re:Gimme a f 'ing break

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither does your country. In fact, your country has been a major sponsor in every single coup d'etat in the last 70 years. Civilian governments overthrown by military, so your putrid corporations could make the biggest profit out of a country... All in name of "our Nation's best interests". Or should we read it as "our businessmen's best interests"?

Now the joke in on you guys. All these corporations learned in those test cases in the third world is being put in practice in your own beloved "land of the brave". And yet most of you are happily waving a stupid flag between your butt cheeks, thinking you are victorious... While being fucked up your butts without any lube. Oh, yes, you can still buy a new 4KHD TV. Guess it's big enough to avoid the shit from coming off those abused assholes.

Re:Gimme a f 'ing break

[Anonymous Coward]

That gives me an idea.

On my 4KHD TV, I want a translation channel.

Whenever a politician is speaking, their words are translated into what they actually mean.

Re:Gimme a f 'ing break

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the UN absolutely consider such actions to be human rights violations. But would you prefer that the UN only condemned the very worst actions and looked through the fingers at everything else?

What made them decide to do this now?

[timrod]

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?

Re:What made them decide to do this now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fact finding, discussion, bureaucracy, politicking, etc. Sure, it's been just over a year, but it likely had to do with the amount of push and pull the US has in the UN. If you want to accuse a juggernaut of wrong-doing, you had best be damn sure you're not alone, that your defense doesn't have obviously glaring holes in it, and that your allies will back you up.

I imagine the US will find some flaw in the report and try to shoot it down.

Re:What made them decide to do this now?

[Anonymous Coward]

The question is, though, what made them decide to release it?

The scary implication is that the whole world is angry at us now, and even our "allies" (who we spy on anyways) are willing to admit it.

Re:What made them decide to do this now?

[sjames]

Probably because any righteous indignation the U.S. can raise now would be like a homeless man with a sharting problem ranting about bad hygiene.

Re:What made them decide to do this now?

[AHuxley]

Re 'The question is, though, what made them decide to release it?"
Its a bit like the EU report on the ECHELON Interception System years ago http://cryptome.org/echelon-ep...
After a while it becomes better to talk openly about the systems due to the constant flow of data out of nations.
More experts, the press and staff can then talk freely as they comment on the induced story in the press.
If they do not comment on it they are seen as tame as a telco, OS firm or the teams who set encryption standards covering for a gov.
Nations might then walk away and form their own international telco groups well outside then UN.
Thats a loss of funding and power.
So they talk, just like telcos, OS firms or the teams who set junk encryption standards about their need to understand more over time.

Ah, yes--the UN Declaration of Human Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the group that has declared paid time off to be a basic human right.
Human rights are things like freedom of religion, and the right to not be imprisoned for your political beliefs.
Sure, the things Snowden has accused the NSA of doing are violations of our civil rights, our constitutional rights. But not our human rights.

Re:Ah, yes--the UN Declaration of Human Rights

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

The first 10 or so are noble, a rough analog of US rights. After that, it starts turning into this bizarre amalgam of a socialist wish list and rules deliberately violating the first 10 fir the purpose of preserving the status quo of those in power.

This item 12 is itself a great example, stating a right not to have one's reputation harmed. Intention: censorship of things which are true but which embarrass politicians, a concept foreign in a land with free speech.

Before downmodding me in quasi-censorship of censorship talk, go look up many examples...from nominally free democracies, forget about dictatorships.

Re:Ah, yes--the UN Declaration of Human Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

In reality, much of the protection for people's freedom of religion, and against persecution for political beliefs, came directly from the fact that people in power didn't know what they were.

Now, they can, with unrestrained scope and specificity. Or, you can avoid that by never expressing either in any electronic medium, and self-censoring your beliefs.

So, technically, it is indeed different from being observed 24-hours a day and strip-searched at random by the "muscle" employed by the guy with the huge dossier on everything about your life, to be "selectively recounted" however desired to his notion of the "best" effect.

It just isn't practically different than such a direct overt violation of our human rights.

Re:Ah, yes--the UN Declaration of Human Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

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."

it says we are free from attacks to our reputation not that we are free from having our reputation harmed by ourselves and then reported by someone else. harming ones own reputation and then having someone else report on what the individual has done is not an attack on their reputation. Article 12 references the ability for people not to be unjustly attacked not to be able to censor the world from their own mistakes. but i see how some people could interpret it the way you have.

its simply the difference between reporting events and libel. The truth is not an attack, it is the truth! it is the constant corruption that has been going on for generations that lead people to think backwards on this one.

Re:Ah, yes--the UN Declaration of Human Rights

[MobyDisk]

Thank you for quoting the text. I've never seen this before.

it says we are free from attacks to our reputation not that we are free from having our reputation harmed by ourselves and then reported by someone else.

If it said that then there might be more agreement. But that isn't what the words you quoted say. It has no such caveat. The only caveat at all is the word "arbitrary" which is a legislative weasel word. If it said "libelous" or "untrue" or something to that effect then it would not be debatable. It simply looks like it is poorly written, even if it is intended to mean what you say it is.

Re:Ah, yes--the UN Declaration of Human Rights

[Immerman]

Well, that's one interpretation.

But if do something horrible and hide the evidence then my reputation is unharmed, but those muckrakers carrying on about "truth" and "evidence" are trying to harm my reputation - a clear attack if I ever saw one. Legitimate perhaps, but still an attack. It would have been easy enough to distinguish the two:
Article 12 (Posi-Earth edition)
"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to *libelous* attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

The United States Voted For That Declaration

[TrollstonButterbeans]

In 1948, the United States voted for that declaration.

"n 10 December 1948, the Universal Declaration was adopted by the General Assembly by a vote of 48 in favor, none against"

This was the West announcing their idea of human rights.

(see Wikipedia)

Re:The United States Voted For That Declaration

[Blue Stone]

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! :)

Re:The United States Voted For That Declaration

[c6gunner]

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.

The founders of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights had, at the time, just finished carpet-bombing large parts of Europe and Asia, and imprisoning their own citizens for the crime of having the wrong ethnic background.

It's not that the countries "aren't keen" on the declaration - it's that the modern interpretation isn't exactly what the drafters had in mind. Kinda how the founders of the US were able to speak about inalienable rights while simultaneously being OK with slavery.

The UN? Oh man...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh shit, the UN said we did something bad. I'm sure the Administration will scream into high gear to appease them.

I mean, we all know how severe the penalties for crossing the UN are.

Re:The UN? Oh man...

[pnutjam]

Just wait until they get bobbles.

Re:The UN? Oh man...

[Anonymous Coward]

Business and government leaders operate on Level 1. Make of that what you will.

Re:The UN? Oh man...

[Anonymous Coward]

You might be a damn fool if you think Morality ever enters any discussion in the acts and plays of Nations.

I personally agree, and think these NSA actions are violations of human liberty and rights. Our elected officials, however, officially don't give a shit, rendering UN as powerless as it has always been. Kohlberg can go fuck himself as far as they are concerned.

Big Deal

[Guy From V]

Now if only the UN were a realistically competent and non-laughable organization this might actually matter in some way.

Re:Big Deal

[gstoddart]

As opposed to the US government, which is a model of competency and the ability to get something done?

Sorry, but if you have a better system for doing stuff, we're all ears.

If not ... well, then you have nothing of value to add here.

Re:Big Deal

[Guy From V]

If only citizens of countries that are models of competency are allowed an opinion on the UN's competency then we would have approximately zero valid opinions.

Re:Big Deal

[gstoddart]

Your options are ... try to work together in a reasoned diplomatic process, or say fuck it and simply got to war.

Since the UN is the only mechanism for the former, what are your options?

Complaining that they're ineffective just points out problems which exist in all such bodies -- not everybody agrees with everybody else.

So, if you have a solution to the UN, you'll have a solution to all broken democracies.

But if you think you're doing any better, you're sadly mistaken. The UN is no more, or no less broken than any other organization made up of different entities with different views.

But this "oh, screw the UN, they're broken" is a statement made by people who have nothing better to offer, and are incapable of seeing the same problems in their own government.

Unless, of course, you think the solution is to simply decide that the US is in charge. And, well, that's not really a good solution to anything.

Re:Big Deal

[Guy From V]

The UN is far from a democratic organization, it's problems lie with the leverage the permanent Security Council has over it and the stagnated idea that it is still 1945. I admit that just complaining that it sucks at it's job isn't constructive and also that I have no better alternatives other than a reform of the power structure of it's leadership - but I think most everyone knows that will not happen, so I guess I'm done here.

Re:Big Deal

[butchersong]

The fact that at best they might be no more or less competent than any other organization is the best point you could make against them having too much influence though given their structure many myself included would argue even that level of compentency. Why must we consolidate the power of every nation in the world into one organization? Does that really seem like a good idea? At the moment the UN is basically a place for countries to natter on to one another and that is fine, there is a place for that but to cede a portion of sovereignty to the UN? No thanks. They can issue declarations and findings with no teeth to back them up, maybe spark some conversation... good for them but to give them too much credibility is dangerous. I much prefer many individual nations each answerable to its on citizenry. Some nations will misbehave some won't but at least you don't have a single point of failure.

Re:Big Deal

[gstoddart]

good for them but to give them too much credibility is dangerous. I much prefer many individual nations each answerable to its on citizenry

No, because if your citizenry decide it's OK to attack another country (*cough* Iraq in 2003 *cough*), your citizenry won't hold you accountable.

The UN is intended to have you accountable to other countries.

And, when the US violates the rights of everyone on the planet, do we see the US citizenry holding their government to task? Clearly, the answer is no.

The problem is every nation would misbehave and act like assholes, and say it's all OK because they've convinced their citizens it's a good idea.

At which point, if there wasn't a body with some teeth, countries would simply annex other countries stuff.

Maybe you think that's a great idea, but the rest of us don't.

People only whine about sovereignty when they're being held to account, but not when they're violating someone else's.

Re:Big Deal

[butchersong]

Nations are sovereign but they are not immortal. Sometimes they fall and sometimes they are taken. It is certainly a position worth discussing that Iraq was wrong or a mistake. Remember that the same Iraqi regime forced us to war to defend Kuwait and the region at great expense and some loss of life some years before and only a cease fire was ever declared. One that Sadam repeated violated. I don't think Sadam had a right for us not to hold him accountable in some way but we sacraficed more than was gained in the invasion. That is certain both from our and the Iraqi peoples perspective.. The neocon position in the US would be that our withdrawl was the mistake and that we should have created stong economic and political ties and maintained a presence in the country the whole point being to create a stablizing force in the region. I'm not sure I buy that though I certainly don't understand why we left Iraq its chemical weapons and radioactive materials. We should have destroyed or shipped that content out prior to leaving. Now.. yay that material is in the hands of ISIS.

Re:Big Deal

[blue9steel]

Sorry, but if you have a better system for doing stuff, we're all ears.

Well, at the very least the UN should switch to a bicameral structure with one chambers membership being more closely aligned with actual country power. Say a combination of land mass, population and wealth for a reasonable proxy.

Re:Big Deal

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think Sadam had a right for us not to hold him accountable in some way

Sadam is irrelevant. Intervention was just idiotic, and I'm tired of wasting tax dollars on garbage.

Trading Places

[Anonymous Coward]

I like it when the guy forced to dress up in a gorilla costume is forcibly caged with a supposedly real gorilla and they do a close up of the guy's eyes as he makes a sick sound like "MMMMPH!"

Un Gun Ban Treaty

[Anonymous Coward]

This coming from a world organization that wants to ban American 2 Amendment Rights to own firearms and protect our lives and property. Sounds very selective towards promulgating agendas.

Re:Un Gun Ban Treaty

[Anonymous Coward]

Get off the drugs, Rush.

Re:Un Gun Ban Treaty

[gweihir]

You should start taking your meds again. You sound like a utter nutcase.

Likely Violated Human Rights?

[theVarangian]

No shit....

Meanwhile in Russia...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

It looks like Ivan just violated the human rights of about 300 people by blowing up their airliner.
http://www.reuters.com/article...

Re:Meanwhile in Russia...

[manquer]

U.S. did this 25 years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Meanwhile in Russia...

[aralin]

Hey, look there.... and puff, like that... he was gone.

Re:Meanwhile in Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

His name is Vladimir, not Ivan.

So what is Russia going to do about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Annex Greece? You can annex it, Vlad, oh, yes, you can annex it.

Imagine what my body would sound like

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's early morning
No one is awake
I'm back at my cliff
Still throwing things off
I listen to the sounds they make
On their way down
I follow with my eyes 'til they crash
Imagine what my body would sound like
Slamming against those rocks

When it lands
Will my eyes
Be closed or open?"

No

[Etherwalk]

does that mean I'm no longer an extremist for demanding my Constitutional rights be respected?

No.

The UN has stated that this probably violated Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which, together with the ICCPR and ICESCR, serve as the "International Bill of Rights." While international law is part of the law of the United States, it is rarely looked to in the United States, and the Universal Declaration is more aspirational than really binding. It doesn't invalidate our laws on its own; we don't have a policy as striking things down because they violate it.

This has *nothing* to do with the United States Constitution. You can demand your Constitutional rights be respected as much as you want; most people demand that without having an understanding of what the Constitution guarantees, instead using it (without legal basis) to rationalize a position that the government shouldn't interfere in X, where X is what they want to do.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

You can demand your Constitutional rights be respected as much as you want; most people demand that without having an understanding of what the Constitution guarantees, instead using it (without legal basis) to rationalize a position that the government shouldn't interfere in X, where X is what they want to do.

The NSA is clearly violating the constitution. It's not that people are wrong about that simple fact; it's that courts are often complicit in the crimes against the American people and 'interpret' the constitution in such a way that it means something completely different from what it says, what it was intended to mean, and what the spirit of the constitution means it means. Not only is this a blatant violation of the 4th amendment, but this style of surveillance been used against the founders, there's zero doubt that they would've taken more explicit steps to prevent the US government from using it.

Re:No

[digsbo]

In a legal sense, I agree with you 100%. In the sense of the perception of the average person, I don't think what you said applies in the least.

Re:No

[demachina]

The founding fathers weren't exactly the pillars of individual freedom you seem to think they were. They were an American centric elite and plutocracy trying to displace a Britsh centric elite and plutocracy, mostly so they could have a bigger cut of America's growing wealth.

You can tell because most of those constitutional protections and the Bill of Rights didn't apply to people who weren't affluent(i.e. who didn't own land), women, native American's, blacks/slaves and indentured whites. They applied mostly to white men who had wealth (at least enough to own land).

They actively prevented people who were not white, male and affluent from voting or holding office. They were mostly slave owners themselves, and they were for the most part very affluent and owners of very large real estate holdings. They were all 1%'ers.

The Declaration of Independence and Constitution were carefully designed to inspire support from enough people in the colonies for their Revolution to succeed, and to create the illusion of freedom, but they had no intention of relinquishing their power and control over the levers of government when it their Revolution did succeed. That plutocracy has never relinquished that control in the more than 200 years since.

The NSA along with the DHS, FBI, ATF and IRS are means for maintaining that control.

The Internet let a genie out of a bottle and created dangerous potentential for the rest of us to organize and try to win some of that power and control back.

When faced with the twin crises, and excuses, that were 9/11 and the 2008 crash it was nearly inevitable that The Powers That Be in the U.S. and U.K. would exploit every tool at their disposal, mainly computers and networks, to try to put a lid back on their control of their increasingly restless and networked homelands and to try to maintain their domination of the world as a whole in the face of increasing challenges.

The 2008 crash in particular resulted in widespread global disillusionment with the fact economies and governments are rigged to benefit the ruling elite and screw everyone else. When ruling elites start feeling that heat they trot out their police states, always have, always will.

Re:No

[Megol]

*Sigh* Yes the founding fathers were perfect beings being created with infinite wisdom, absolute faith, the ability to see the future and cover every situation in the future of mankind with a terse text.

Or maybe not. But it is easier to simply worship the above idea, right?

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes the founding fathers were perfect beings being created with infinite wisdom, absolute faith, the ability to see the future and cover every situation in the future of mankind with a terse text.

Straw man. No one said anything of the sort. Try reading that post again.

Re:No

[jeIIomizer]

The founding fathers weren't exactly the pillars of individual freedom you seem to think they were.

I don't see where he said that they were. The founding fathers were far from perfect, but that does not mean that they did not have a number of good ideas; they did.

Does your post have a point, or is it just, "They weren't perfect, so absolutely everything they believed was 100% incorrect."? I'm not sure, but that's what it looks like to me. His real point was that they wouldn't have tolerated this. They took action against a number of other rights violations that they knew of at the time, and general warrants were unconstitutional, so there's absolutely zero reason to think they would have let something this huge slide.

Re:No

[Noah Haders]

two words: Im Peach. Impeach! Time to get rid of this unconstitutional autocratic president.

Re:No

[meta-monkey]

Yes, yes, we all know, they established an aristocracy and rights were only really for first-class citizens like themselves and not women, the poor and blacks. However, the government has since been modified to include supposedly everyone in the first-class citizen pool.

The founders had a remarkably good set of rules deciding what the government could and could not do to first-class citizens, and that's what we respect them for.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Right because this didn't happen under any other president, nor would it with any other replacement...

Re:No

[ultranova]

However, the government has since been modified to include supposedly everyone in the first-class citizen pool.

Or so you were told, anyway. Welcome to reality, third-class citizen.

Re:No

[mrchaotica]

You forgot about the other 545 people we also need to impeach. (One vice president, 9 supreme court justices, 100 senators, and 435 representatives.)

Re:No

[demachina]

Try reading Zinn's A People's History of the United States. It will disillusion you of the comic book U.S. History taught in U.S. school where the founding fathers are all saints and geniuses.

They were mostly self serving and profiteering. Its fitting Andrew Jackson is on the $20 dollar bill because he was infamous for profiteering off the battles he won, mostly by seizing the lands he took and splitting it up between himself and his friends.

Re:No

[sgtrock]

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

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Yep, those damn plutocrats sure did their best that the rest of us would never have a leg up. /sarcasm

I suggest that you take some time to read the Federalist Papers. I think you'll discover things aren't quite as black and white as you believe.

Re:No

[Noah Haders]

Meh. Start at the top. The NSA thing is clearly a violation of executive authority.

Re:No

[demachina]

I should point out native americans are still largely unemployed, stuck in reservations on land white American's didn't want. One of their few rays of hope being the ubiquitous Indian Casino where they are exacting their revenge. Still they are second class citizens.

Blacks were still being massively discriminated against until the Civil Rights act which was around 180 years later. They are still second class citizens.

The poor, they are still second class citizens.

Women are the one group doing pretty well for themselves though they are still underrepresnted in government.

Look around the room at a State of the Union address. The room is still overwhelming full of affluent white men.

As for the founding fathers brilliant ideas on governence, it exploded in a bloody civil war in 80 years.

You need look no further than where the U.S. congress, courts and presidency are today. They are a smoldering ruin. They have never been the great institutions Americans are brainwashed in to thinking they are. Are they better than totalitarian dictatorships, sure. Are they models the rest of the world can aspire too, no, not really.

American governement is the best government money can buy.

Re:No

[jeIIomizer]

That's irrelevant to whether or not he should be impeached.

Re:No

[demachina]

You do realize those rights at that point in time applied only to white male land owners, right?

Re:No

[TrollstonButterbeans]

Maybe for voting, I don't see your argument on the freedom of speech thing or the other ones.

And land was cheap and plentiful and plenty of trees to cut down and make log cabins.

Not many very apartment renters back then, as you seem to apply was going on.

Re:No

[dryeo]

Of course most of them would have tolerated this as long as it was being used against loyalists or any of the sub-human types, read up on how the colonists who were not in favour of revolution were treated. Just like now, what they wouldn't tolerate was this being used on them.

Re:No

[dryeo]

If you call having to kill the land owners cheap.

Re:No

[jeIIomizer]

Once again, everyone is already aware that the founders were far from perfect. Do you have a point?

Re:No

[rtb61]

Not to mention the tiny little fact that the NSA broke computer crime laws in every country on the face of the planet. This after the US screamed about computer crime laws, sought to extradite all and sundry for the most minor computer crimes, spending millions on it whilst it itself was doing far, far, mind boggling, far worse. Double speak for USA crime is justice or computer hacking is only hacking when everyone else does it when the US does it we have a memo for that. Forget the constitution, forget the legislature, the US has memos that legalised everything and anything.

Re:No

[dryeo]

To quote you,

His real point was that they wouldn't have tolerated this. They took action against a number of other rights violations that they knew of at the time, and general warrants were unconstitutional, so there's absolutely zero reason to think they would have let something this huge slide.

Re:No

[jeIIomizer]

Right, but I still don't see your point. Yes, most people were treated badly, but the rights of 'first-class citizens' were generally respected. Again, I see no evidence that they'd let something this huge slide. You can keep pointing out slavery and other such things, but it's meaningless.

Re:No

[dryeo]

The rights of 'first class citizens" are still respected, I'm sure our rulers have exempted themselves from this shit. The problem is the whole idea of 'first class citizens'

Re:No

[jeIIomizer]

Well, I agree with you there, but what does this have to do with the constitutional aspect of this? It's blatantly unconstitutional, which was the entire point of all this.

Re:No

[dryeo]

I probably misunderstood your parent comment, easy to do in a forum. Sorry

Re:No

[meta-monkey]

I've read A People's History. I never claimed the founders were saints. All I'm saying is that, for the time, the constitution and the bill of rights were pretty damn enlightened. We could do better, but we could certainly do much, much worse.

Re:No

[digsbo]

No, you have to start with Congress. Because they don't have term limits. The President will be gone soon regardless. Chop off the head, and a new one grows in its place. You gotta hit Congress, and SCOTUS.

Re:No

[Noah Haders]

scotus is on our side, albeit it's a slow moving ship. read the GPS ruling from 2012 (unanimous) and the cell phone ruling from 2014 (unanimous). they'll get to the right conclusion, it just may take them too long.

Re:No

[Sciath]

Nail on the head there.

Re:No

[Sciath]

The let slavery slide for nearly a century. The founding fathers who were opposed to slavery from the getgo caved into the financial interests of the plantation owners and other slave owners.

Re:No

[Sciath]

Well, since we can no longer impeach King George II, I suppose we should just strip him of his presidential perks, and toss him in jail along with, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et. al. for getting us involved in an unjustified and misleading 13 year war in which thousands have been killed or maimed.

Re:No

[jeIIomizer]

The let slavery slide for nearly a century.

*sigh* Once again, no, the founders were not perfect. However, the rights of 'first-class citizens' were treated quite well. And also, the constitution took steps to prevent a number of other government abuses that the founders were aware of at the time, so again, there's no reason to think they wouldn't have similarly acted against NSA-style surveillance.

as Kissinger once said

[cellocgw]

Well, to be fair, Kissinger inside a Doonesbury strip said, "I'm sick and tired of people asking about human rights. What do you want: human rights or world peace?"

harrumph

Re:as Kissinger once said

[msauve]

The US wouldn't be its own country if the founders hadn't valued rights above peace.

Re:as Kissinger once said

[Anonymous Coward]

The same motherfucker who sponsored Salvador Allende's murder simply because US corporations wanted to own the copper mining business? Fuck him and his words. Oblivion is where it belongs, at best.

Re:as Kissinger once said

[cellocgw]

Whoosh. Do you know what Doonesbury is?

Re:as Kissinger once said

[Anonymous Coward]

The US wouldn't be its own country if the founders hadn't valued rights above peace.

And it isn't its own country any more. In the tradition of middle American countries, the CIA and military installed its own dictatorship, thinly veiled under the guise of democratic procedures procuring sockpuppets that will be removed if they refuse dancing to the tune of their masters.

Re:as Kissinger once said

[msauve]

I'm not the one quoting a comic strip. And Doonesbury is a "who."

Re:as Kissinger once said

[cellocgw]

And Doonesbury is a "who."

Oh, so now not only corporations but also comic strips are people?

Re:as Kissinger once said

[msauve]

So you don't know. The name of the comic strip refers to Mike Doonesbury, a principle character in the strip.

Re:as Kissinger once said

[Anonymous Coward]

Man you confused at least two users with your post. What's going on, Slashdot?

Re:as Kissinger once said

[Vinegar Joe]

Whether he was murdered or committed suicide, a dead communist is no loss.

I'm sure

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure it's just the NSA. I can't imagine China, Russia or heck, even England intercepting and collecting.
Can you?

Re:I'm sure

[kuzb]

It's not that they're not doing it - it's that they haven't been caught. Or at least, not caught on the same scale.

Re:I'm sure

[Sique]

I'm sure the NSA has the widest spread program to do so. No other country routinely collects all information of all people all over the world (though they claim not to collect the information about U.S. citizens under certain conditions). And for UK, they are already in conflict with the European High Court about collecting this information.

And at the same time, the NSA is the most useless organisation when it comes to fight domestic terrorism, as the only fact related to domestic terrorism they ever uncovered was a money transfer by a San Diego cab driver to a charity in Somalia which is considered a front to a terrorist organisation.

Re:I'm sure

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you suggesting that any criticism of the US is invalid because other governments do the same? Let's examine that reasoning:

Why should I go to jail for murdering someone? He did it, and he called the police!

Why should I go to jail for driving a car at high speed through a playground filled with children? He did it, and he called the police!

Why should I go to jail for filming in the sexy neighbour's bedroom window? The guy who reported me was doing it, too!

Hmm. Nope, no matter what way I try and twist it, I can't find a rational way to discredit the idea. It's almost as if doing something wrong is an issue in itself, not that it was reported by someone else who also engages in it.

The UN? Oh man...

[Anonymous Coward]

And you follow the law only because of the penalties and you shit all over everybodys place until there is some law that forbits it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development
Your stuck on level 1, and when someone mentions _the_ constitution then you may be level 4.

Hypocrites

[Ralph Wiggam]

Let's take a look at the membership of the UN Human Rights Commission-

China
Kuwait
Pakistan
Russia
Saudi Arabia
UAE
Venezuela

Clearly these folks are qualified to tell other people about how important civil rights are.

Re:Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

This morning we learn a UN operated school has been used to conceal Hamas missiles in Gaza.

"We're SOOOOOOO sorry ............... We didn't know!!!"

"We'll ``investigate`` that right away!"

.... and cover up all the other cases we find.

The UN is the single most effective tyranny enabler on Earth. Millions of victims live under third world dictators and theocrats propped up by the UN.

The highly selective criticism of the US by the UN has no credibility with me.

Re:Hypocrites

[DigitalSorceress]

You're not listing the entire group membership

And you're mixing the human rights commission with the human rights council and cherrypicking from the bottom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

Just because some nations with less than stellar reputations themselves are on the council and/or commission does not automatically invalidate their mission or what the UN commission / council have to say.

I understand the worry of "putting the fox in charge of the hen house" but one could put it another way: Even these countries see we (the US) is being hypocritical and violating human rights.

Re:Hypocrites

[Ralph Wiggam]

The fact that those countries were allowed into any human rights group shows what a worthless joke the UN has become.

Re:Hypocrites

[Megol]

You forgot US (supporting torture, executions etc.).

But this kind of excessive black/white thinking can be an indication of a mental disorder. Not in your case though, it seems you are simply incapable of formulating the question (nor the answer to it): what is the best existing global organization to make such a declaration?

Re:Hypocrites

[Megol]

Ah you are in the group S5: "UN is a socialistic terror organization supporting those dirty Arab scum". Less common compared with group B3: "UN is a socialistic terror organization under the control of ZOG".

Personally I'm in group F8: "UN is a dynamically balanced structure, weak, old world nostalgic and generally bad. But it is still better than the alternative".

Re:Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly these folks are qualified to tell other people about how important civil rights are.

You imply that, because there are UN countries that are far from paragons of virtue, the US can safely declare themselves to be better than them and ignore the pronouncement. Try looking at it from another perspective: how bad do you think the US is when even the likes of China, Kuwait, etc. publicly denounce their behaviour?

Re:Hypocrites

[Ralph Wiggam]

These countries are only criticizing the US because the US has criticized their human rights records. It has nothing to do with their concern for human rights.

Re:Hypocrites

[Ralph Wiggam]

Not everyone can be a genius like you. Sorry.

Re:Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think he's not in group B3? It makes more sense when you think about why they would do this. I for one am part of the group "UN is an illuminati terror organization under the control of the reptoids".

Re:Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

The UN is the single most effective tyranny enabler on Earth. Millions of victims live under third world dictators and theocrats propped up by the UN.

It's called sovereignty. UN is the place for equal nations to solve their issues and mutual problems on a neutral ground, unless the self-interest of the Security Council members, such as the US and Russia compromise it.
  How the diplomatic failures of Hamas have to do with upholding the commonly agreed principles by those who helped formulating them in the first place, is a mystery.

Re:Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's what you are missing. Yeah, those countries have generally dismal human rights records. That makes them unqualified to pass judgement on their domestic human rights records. And actually it's not that they are unqualified (implying possible ignorance) but they are partial and biased on the domestic front. In fact, this issue is true of any country and on any subject, whether the domestic issue is positive or negative.

In short even a torturer can identify, with some reliability and credibility, a torturer from another country, to whom they owe no debt or obligation, or particular negative bias. There's a saying for this too: "It takes one to know one."

Re:Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

They were allowed in because we want them to actually take part in and consider human rights. Shutting them out is counter productive.
We would also like the US to consider human rights but that seems to be at bit far off for some people.

Re:Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

it seems you are simply incapable of formulating the question (nor the answer to it): what is the best existing global organization to make such a declaration?

Why do we need a global organization to make such a declaration? Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Re:Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

So your whole argument is that these other countries are hypocrites and therefore we should ignore the criticism? A childish argument, often used by uneducated people.

This is the common "Tu Quoque" logical fallacy where you attempt to discredit any criticism by claiming that the subject is hypocritically not acting within the boundaries they describe. By failing to address the facts listed in the criticism, you've given no logical counter-argument as to why why should disregard their statement. You may as well have said "They're wrong because they're big meanies!"

The short version: there is nothing in their behaviour that invalidates their claims about the US: the US is conducting widespread surveillance, this does likely violate human rights.

Re:Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

You simply lack objectivity.

Re:Hypocrites

[JMJimmy]

I've got to agree with the other two comments. In addition to their excellent perspectives there's also the issue of 47 countries which practice Shari'a law in some form. When 25% of the world's countries do things a certain way they need to have their perspective in the mix. The only way a universal human rights treaty can be respected is if it considers the perspective of all it applies to. For those 25% religious rights/law are a human right. Getting them to agree, in principle, that religious rights - while respected - do not trump other rights relating to the rule of law/security of person/etc. is massively important and has already lead to significant changes in their laws/application of justice. Far from perfect but a step forward.

Re:Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's take a look at the membership of the UN Human Rights Commission-

China Kuwait Pakistan Russia Saudi Arabia UAE Venezuela

Clearly these folks are qualified to tell other people about how important civil rights are.

Please, check your info, before trying to take credibility from the U.N. Commission of Human Rights:

"To implement our comprehensive mandate, we employ 1085 staff (as of 31 December 2013) based in Geneva, New York and in 13 country offices and 13 regional offices or centres around the world, as well as a workforce of 689 international human rights officers serving in UN peace missions or political offices. We are funded from the United Nations regular budget and from voluntary contributions from Member States, intergovernmental organizations, foundations and individuals."
Source: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/AboutU...

Re:Hypocrites

[Ralph Wiggam]

They were allowed in because we want them to actually take part in and consider human rights.

How has that worked out?

Re:Hypocrites

[david_thornley]

Not well. How would excluding them from human rights discussions have worked?

Re:Hypocrites

[Ralph Wiggam]

That same. But the UN wouldn't look like a bunch of hypocrite assholes.

Big Deal

[Anonymous Coward]

If only the USA would cede some power to the UN.

And in other news ...

[johnlcallaway]

... the UN will continue to be inconsequential in any affairs other than sucking funds from wealthy countries and offering crazy world leaders a place to get publicity.

The saying is incomplete

[Anonymous Coward]

The road to hell may be paved with good intentions, but it's built by people waiting around for someone else "brave" or "smart" or "courageous" or "" enough to re-plot the course. Because guess what? No one or vanishingly few number of "brave" or "smart" or "courageous" men can achieve such a colossal course correction on their own.

Re:The saying is incomplete

[Anonymous Coward]

Also: I just realized that perhaps this is why we need Lady Thor.

From one extremist in Liberty to another

[bigpat]

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

- said by Abraham Lincoln on the afternoon of Thursday, November 19, 1863, at the dedication of the Soldiers' National Cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania

Re:From one extremist in Liberty to another

[digsbo]

Lincoln was an extremist, but not for Liberty. He was the single worst president in terms of Constitutional violations for political purposes up to, and possibly including, Obama.

Re:From one extremist in Liberty to another

[bigpat]

Maybe so. I am not a great fan of Lincoln. In many ways he acted like a tyrant and violated the constitution often times flagrantly during the war when dealing with individuals and dissent. And I believe a truly great person and president would have found a way to prevent civil war and bloodshed in the first place, or maybe it was an impossible task.

But the difference is and was that in the end that Lincoln decided to fight for Liberty instead of against it. He decided to make the civil war about freeing the slaves instead of just suppressing dissent in the South (and the North). Sure, maybe this was window dressing on what had been a rudderless and ruthless presidency and maybe he was late to the game, but perhaps the lesson is that while you are still president it is not too late.

Just like it is not too late for Obama to be the president to be remembered for sticking up for the constitution instead of defending those government violations of all our civil rights.

Right now what will Obama be remembered for? Revelations of wholesale violations of civil rights that he defended instead of putting a stop to? It would be like Lincoln fighting the civil war with hundreds of thousands of dead and then appointing a commission to explore ending slavery instead of issuing the emancipation proclamation.

Obama has the power with one executive order to have the same lasting effect as Lincoln did with his emancipation proclamation or with his Gettysburg address. An America without Liberty is an America without purpose.

Re:From one extremist in Liberty to another

[digsbo]

But the difference is and was that in the end that Lincoln decided to fight for Liberty instead of against it. He decided to make the civil war about freeing the slaves instead of just suppressing dissent in the South (and the North).

Check out his letter describing his scouting mission to Liberia. At one point he had vague ideas about deporting the freed slaves to Liberia and forming a colony. Also keep in mind he freed the slaves ONLY in the states and territories opposing the Union. He prohibited slavery in new territories, but there's reason to believe this was to keep them racially pure (white).

Lincoln used policy to put economic pressure on the South. I think slavery was an issue he manipulated politically. Since he was killed we will never know for sure what he would have done post-war.

Re:From one extremist in Liberty to another

[digsbo]

Here: Lincoln's comments on colonization of the freed slaves.

Re: From one extremist in Liberty to another

[bigpat]

Lincoln also pushed for passage of the 13th amendment abolishing slavery in 1864 and 1865. Yes, it may have taken the pressure of the 1864 presidential campaign to make it a top priority, but regardless of how he got there in the end he really did push to end slavery.

You don't say?

[Anonymous Coward]

No shit, Sherlock.

Fuck you Slashdot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently I am welcome to use the classic interface as long as I don't want to read about this story. Fuck you.

Now the U.N. can ignore the U.S.!

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.N. is now in a unique position to rectify the (persecution/prosecution) of Edward Snowden by the U.S.

All they need to do is hire him, issue a U.N. passport,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_laissez-passer

and grant him dipolmatic immunity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity

Consttutional government

[Immerman]

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.

Re:Consttutional government

[dnavid]

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.

Not exactly. For one thing, whether the US Constitution explicitly grants the Federal government to "interfere in X" is subject to interpretation, and has to be because the US Constitution makes a lot of common sense assumptions about how government works: that's why so many early Supreme Court rulings invoked (British) common law. The critical catch-all clause in the Constitution is Article 1 Section 8: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Even at the time of the drafting and ratification of the Constitution people debated the degree to which this clause expanded the powers of Congress.

James Madison argued in Federalist 44 that because it would be futile to attempt to anticipate all of the specific powers Congress (and the Federal government) would need for all time, the Constitution *must* grant the federal government any power necessary to fulfill the obligations the Constitution proscribes. He directly stated that trying to enumerate all of the powers the Constitution grants with explicit text would be ridiculous.

Because the question of what is "necessary and proper" is not an absolutely objective standard and the drafters of the Constitution knew this the Constitution can't be said to express explicitly enumerated powers. Even strict constructionists concede at least some of the power granted by the Constitution is implied by the intent of its text and not explicitly stated. And if you're concerned about any expansion of the Constitution's powers as being power-mongering, consider this: the Bill of Rights does not guarantee anyone in the US actually has those rights: it guarantees that the Federal Government can't intrude on them. Nothing anywhere in the text of the Constitution explicitly prohibits state governments from trampling all over, say, someone's First Amendment rights to free speech. The notion that state governments must honor the same limitations that the Constitution places upon the Federal government is another one of those power-mongering BS interpretations of the Constitution, namely the incorporation doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment. Read the 14th Amendment: nowhere in the text does it say that States must incorporate the protections of the Bill of Rights, and nowhere in the first ten amendments does it state those protections apply to State governments, only the federal government. The incorporation doctrine of the Supreme Court was created over fifty years after the passage of the 14th Amendment, and argued that the implication of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment implies State governments must incorporate the same protections as the Federal government. But try to find that in the text.

Incidentally, the eighteenth amendment which prohibited the sale of alcohol doesn't prove that banning alcohol requires a Constitutional Amendment. The opponents of alcohol pushed for a Constitutional Amendment because it was the strongest possible ban they could strive for and they felt it was achievable. Not only could they ban alcohol sales in every State without having to convince every state to ratify the amendment, once ratified the only way to overturn the ban would be to generate enough support to amend the Constitution again: the ban could not be trivially overturned the way any Congressional law can be by successive Congresses. Its also important to note history: t

Re:Consttutional government

[Anonymous Coward]

Incorrect. The individual views of the founders are irrelevant. What matters is that the constitution, in numerous places, explicitly states that the government can only do what it says it can.

Incidentally, the eighteenth amendment which prohibited the sale of alcohol doesn't prove that banning alcohol requires a Constitutional Amendment.

It's evidence of that fact. Furthermore, the fact that the Supreme Court had to use such terrible logic ("It could go across state borders in some cases, so it's okay to ban it.") proves that they were complicit in the crimes against the American people.

Vanish, authoritarian.

Re:Consttutional government

[HiThere]

You are correct that the Constitution, as originally interpreted, reserved to the individual states the right to decide that they had additional rights. Do, however, note that many states already has constitutions graranteeing at least some of the rights enumerated in the "Bill of Rights", as that "Bill of Rights" was largely copied from the constitution of the state of Virginia. Also note that yet again, in the Bill of Rights it is explicitly stated that those powers not explicitly enumerted in the Constitution were reserved to the states or the people.

You are right that the Constitution didn't give much power over the states to the Federal government, and didn't prohibit the individual states from denying particular rights to their citizenry. But it wasn't as state constitution, it was the Federal Constitution, so that is a statement that the powers of the federal government were limited. State constitutions were the means chosen for limiting the powers of the state governments.

NONE of this justifies the obscene expansion of power that twisted interpretations of the US Constitution have saddled us with. There needs to be a constitutional amendment explicitly granting the right to recall any federal official holding any office whatsoever, and without requiring that the official have been originally elected. And it needs to be fairly easy to get that recall petition started, and while one should be able to remove ones name from beinf signatory, it should be difficult to get the petition removed short of a general vote. And a recall should prohibit further participation in government at the federal level, whether as a contractor, an administrator, a legislator, or a technical specialist, or any other position not currently mentioned except that they should not be prevented from receiving social security, health insurance, or general assistance via a program generally available to the populace.

Re:Consttutional government

[dnavid]

Incorrect. The individual views of the founders are irrelevant. What matters is that the constitution, in numerous places, explicitly states that the government can only do what it says it can.

If you want to go that far, what matters is that the Constitution states that the US Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution, not ordinary citizens. There are no exceptions to that rule listed within the Constitution.

the UN violates human rights just by existing

[Anonymous Coward]

bah.

Why does Obama hate our freedom?

[Anonymous Coward]

and How many terrorists does it take to fill up Washington DC?

rights!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

you mean to tell me i have rights? since when did the NSA ever grant us freedoms? oh, wait never because they are being violated...

Nobel

[Anonymous Coward]

Time for another Nobel Peace prize.