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.
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...