Terror Attempt on Delta Flight

[The Scream]

M.J., I have no reason to believe that you want to have a serious discussion with me beyond harassing me.

 

As far as I'm concerned the discussion about profiling has been civilized on all sides. I have no desire to get blown up on a plane or anywhere else and I am actually not against criminal profiling to a certain extent.

[mongo_jones]

M.J., I have no reason to believe that you want to have a serious discussion with me beyond harassing me.

 

so, in other words, i am not in error in believing that the positions you railed against in your post haven't actually been espoused by anyone on this thread?

[The Scream]

[LML]

But more seriously, you are proposing that suspected potential attackers should not enjoy a full portfolio of human rights. I ask you, what constitutes a suspect in this instance?

 

In the instance I quoted, I take the view that anyone whose past activities included those of Abdulmutallab must inevitably forfeit the "right" of privacy from the world's security services. He brings that upon himself by his association with Muslim fundamentalists.

 

Some "human rights" are sacrosanct, and these include those you mentioned in passing in an earlier post. There is no circumstance in which I would allow imprisonment without habeas corpus, or "rendition". The right to religion or not, and the right to think what you like are fundamental human rights. And so on. People validly disagree about what are and are not "human rights", and I suspect that disagreement will always exist, but there is no need for universal agreement unless and until legislation is being framed; and then there needs to be a proper debate.

 

You are suggesting that having a world-view ideologically opposed to the U.S. is a sufficient condition to forfeit one's human rights.

 

Although it is hardly surprising that all those convicted of attacks on the U.S. hold this position, it does not follow that all those who hold this position will attack the U.S.

 

If this criterion is taken to be a sufficient condition for the violation of human rights, the human rights of those who have no intention of making attacks will be violated.

 

Or put another way, the only way to ensure the sanctity of one's human rights is to be pro U.S.

 

In other words, you are wrong.

[Orik]

Remind me again, which human right is being violated here?

 

[LML]

Remind me again, which human right is being violated here?

 

These ones:

 

Article 2

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

 

Article 9

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

 

Article 11

Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

 

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.

 

Article 13

Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

Everyone has the right to leave any country, including their own, and to return to their country.

 

Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

 

Article 19

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

 

Article 28

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

 

Article 30

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

[splinky]

boy, would i love to know what this one feels like, for just one day

to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law

[macrosan]

You are suggesting that having a world-view ideologically opposed to the U.S. is a sufficient condition to forfeit one's human rights.

 

Well that's just the LML monochromatic yes-or-no style of argument. You see everything in extremes, and simply reduce what others say to your own extreme taste.

 

That's not what I'm suggesting, and you know that's not what I'm suggesting (because I have already explained what I'm suggesting in a way which even you will understand).

 

Instead of wasting your time deliberately distorting what others say, why not try and justify your own rather specialised world view?

[LML]

You are suggesting that having a world-view ideologically opposed to the U.S. is a sufficient condition to forfeit one's human rights.

 

Well that's just the LML monochromatic yes-or-no style of argument. You see everything in extremes, and simply reduce what others say to your own extreme taste.

 

That's not what I'm suggesting, and you know that's not what I'm suggesting (because I have already explained what I'm suggesting in a way which even you will understand).

 

Instead of wasting your time deliberately distorting what others say, why not try and justify your own rather specialised world view?

 

Yeah, yeah, whatever. But you still have two problems: firstly, I've shown that your argument doesn't work. Secondly, you haven't shown that mine doesn't.*

 

For all your bluster, you're still wrong.

 

*show is not synonymous with say.

[Orik]

Remind me again, which human right is being violated here?

 

These ones:

 

Article 2

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

 

Article 9

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

 

Article 11

Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

 

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.

 

Article 13

Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

Everyone has the right to leave any country, including their own, and to return to their country.

 

Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

 

Article 19

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

 

Article 28

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

 

Article 30

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

 

And these are quotes from a children's book?

 

[Orik]

Predicting LML's dismissive response here - the reason I think these are childish is that they are ostensibly human rights, but they are laced (larded?) with concepts such as "own country", "same state", "religion" - all of which are there to protect the rights of countries and the religious establishment (why is it a right to move to one country in particular and not to any country? that's just ridiculous). It is completely unclear how any of these concepts relate to the rights of a human - if anything they are the "rights" of a civilian in a religious country, and by accepting their existence and eminence you are in fact contributing to the violations of human rights under the very wide umbrella of article 30.

[Wilfrid]

I think one can agree that the content of these statements of rights is indeed tendentious, as Orik argues, without drawing the conclusion that their violation is bound to be a trivial matter. For example, I agree that the right to move freely between all countries is desirable; but it does not follow that the right to leave a country and return to one's own country is something trivial, to be abrogated at whim.

[SethG]

Whatever one's formulation of fundamental rights, it has long been settled in American law that those rights are forfeited at ports of entry.

 

I'm not saying that's right or wrong, only that it isn't a recent development.

[Orik]

Whatever one's formulation of fundamental rights, it has long been settled in American law that those rights are forfeited at ports of entry.

 

I'm not saying that's right or wrong, only that it isn't a recent development.

 

Correct, there is no qualitative change. Perhaps my question should have been which *additional* human rights are being violated.

 

For example, I agree that the right to move freely between all countries is desirable; but it does not follow that the right to leave a country and return to one's own country is something trivial, to be abrogated at whim.

 

True. It's probably no coincidence that the UDHR was passed in very close proximity to resolution 194, which states that it is reasonable to abrogate it at a whim, at least for a while.

[hollywood]

Whatever one's formulation of fundamental rights, it has long been settled in American law that those rights are forfeited at ports of entry.

 

I'm not saying that's right or wrong, only that it isn't a recent development.

 

Correct, there is no qualitative change. Perhaps my question should have been which *additional* human rights are being violated.

 

For example, I agree that the right to move freely between all countries is desirable; but it does not follow that the right to leave a country and return to one's own country is something trivial, to be abrogated at whim.

 

True. It's probably no coincidence that the UDHR was passed in very close proximity to resolution 194, which states that it is reasonable to abrogate it at a whim, at least for a while.

The king controls the borders.