Should certain people be subjects of human rights?

I'm a bit troubled and confused by some declarations lately (mostly within the Backroom -when not...). Things like: "We don't give a trial to prisoners captured in war..." I could agree with this statement depending on the context, but the excuse is even more confusing: "...because they're not XXX citizens". What's the logic to state this? Do you agree or not with what said subject is saying? You might as well consider that the nation in question is member of the UN (wich means that they're at least part on the Declaration)... This might be a little complex, or look like it, but just give me common sense, it's apreciated, even more to an confused individual...

The USA used to be the champion of the concept of universal human rights. We were instrumental in pushing for a review of the Geneva Conventions after WWII, when it became clear that certain old ways of viewing war weren't going to cover all of the problems encountered during that war. We were also instrumental in pushing for the 1977 Protocols, which were then vilified by the neocons of the Reagan regime.

The neocons are back in power again, and so much for universal human rights. Apparently, now, human rights are only for us not them. Rights for some but not for all. And if someone else violates rights or refuses to accept the concept of a rule of law, the accepted (neocon) view seems to be that it is then just fine for us to violate them too. Tit for tat. They're terrorists! So we should act just like them. They violate the Geneva Conventions so we will too. It's just sad. :no:

Your confusing me with your question Soulforged so I guess that makes us both confused.

A mindset that some Americans have goes basically like this:

"We are the land of the free, the champions of human rights etc, etc If you're an American citizen. The rest of the world population should be grateful for thee rights we give them."

It has improved actually, nowadays they don't install dictators in countries so that the freedom loving American people can get thier rightful cheap fruits (especially bananas). :laugh4: :inquisitive:

Basically there's a slightly too large difference between an American and non-American in thier eyes, making the rights for the American always come first, no matter how wrong it really is, and the cost for the non-American.

Thier non-citizenship issue is basically:
"Oh, look if we're very speciffic about the law, we aren't legally entitled to give them any rights at all. And as they're possibly terrorists who want to blow us up, they should be grateful for anything we give them."

So basically they're excusing thier behavior by using the letters of the law and not the spirit by the law or even more importantly thier official spirit of thier country.
To put it clearly, how would the Americans react on a Guantanamo filled with American citizens (made by the US or any other nation), no matter how the Americans ended up there?

Of coarse the neo-cons miss that they are actually erroding their own human rigth when they pull this stuff since they're implying that it's okay to torture/whatever humans under the correct circumstances. which of coarse by de-fault means that they not only commit acts of 'evil' by doing this but also in the long terms means they've justified others doing the same to US citizens.

Unfortunately the tit for tat logic not only goes for terrorists but anyone of the same nationality / colour / religion / speaks funny language / accent / geographiclly where trouble is. Sort of "prove you're not a terrorist - but we don't have to listen or accept proof"

When are they selling the statue of Liberty for scrap? it must be something of an embarassment for their new way of dealing with the world.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Csar

Your confusing me with your question Soulforged so I guess that makes us both confused.

---

The question is pretty simple. Subject A says: "I think that subject B should not receive certain human rights because W". I ask, do you agree with him? If positive why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

The USA used to be the champion of the concept of universal human rights. We were instrumental in pushing for a review of the Geneva Conventions after WWII, when it became clear that certain old ways of viewing war weren't going to cover all of the problems encountered during that war. We were also instrumental in pushing for the 1977 Protocols, which were then vilified by the neocons of the Reagan regime.

The neocons are back in power again, and so much for universal human rights. Apparently, now, human rights are only for us not them. Rights for some but not for all. And if someone else violates rights or refuses to accept the concept of a rule of law, the accepted (neocon) view seems to be that it is then just fine for us to violate them too. Tit for tat. They're terrorists! So we should act just like them. They violate the Geneva Conventions so we will too. It's just sad. :no:

---

The Genova Conventions are only one of the instruments that I'm refering too, the Universal Declaration being the most important (in wich the USA also played an important part). Now leaving aside all Conventions and standing only with the etimology, is you wish, of human rights, it should be clear to anyone that every human is a benefitiary of those norms. However some strange logic denies all that, and I want to find the answers to that, it seems more than just "tit for tat", or peharps it's not...

I don't know, Soulforged. I suspect it is a very deeply buried response. I'm reminded of the thread we had here recently about "the Monkeysphere" and its implications. While not altogether serious, there are certain core truths in it. As I think I've said a couple of times, I believe that we're a few thousand years of "civilization" slapped like a thin veneer on top of several million years of savannah-walker family group instincts. The deeply-rooted results of thousands of millenia bubble up through the veneer at times, and in the oddest places.

We've a very long way to go before our hindbrains catch up to our forebrains. And some people, perhaps most, are still rather heavily ruled by their hindbrains while rationalizing their actions with their forebrains. No one is entirely free of those thousands of millenia of instinct. (shrug)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

The question is pretty simple. Subject A says: "I think that subject B should not receive certain human rights because W". I ask, do you agree with him? If positive why?

---

Everyone should be treated humanely. There are no excuses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

Everyone should be treated humanely. There are no excuses.

---

Exactly, even if this is from a moral point of view.

Now please Ice, can you put that in your sig so everyone remembers it. Thanks.:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Everyone should be treated humanely. There are no excuses.

---

It is a pithy quote but it may not result in what you think.

When I treat an animal humanely it means to kill it quickly...

There are Some That Deserve to live and others that deserve to die... I really don't know where I'm go with this...~:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

There are Some That Deserve to live and others that deserve to die... I really don't know where I'm go with this...~:confused:

---

I could go with the Tolkien quote on that ... but I'm not, rather I will say.

Dying is easy, it's living that's hard.