It not false at all. There is a ton of criticism of the UDHR. There is no true universal understanding of what is meant by human rights. We cannot even agree of what is a human.
He’s been popping all over the board saying that since there’s no absolute right and wrong, anything you can get away with is just fine. Unless he’s the victim of course. Sounds like typical conservative scum to me.
Semantic sophistry. We may not have a universal understanding of “human” and “human rights”, such that each and all are in complete accord for every jot and tittle of definition, but we have a rough, workable framework for what it is, and most assuredly, for what it is not.
Where does this working framework come from? What is its ultimate source?
Why do we fiddle on the roof?
it is illegal to
Articles 1-16 of that treaty are not self-executing.
This is the guy who wanted to put a tax on fat people. And then, when it was closed for the trolling that it was, he whined that we were the ones who were persecuting him.
He was also the guy who was asking about pre-pubescent girls and lubrication.
He’s not a conservative, just a troll. (or maybe a conservative troll-at this point, it really doesn’t matter)
This is one of his worst efforts yet.
Let me ask you this, Two and a Half Inches of Fun. If you were Maher Arar, you’d be totally okay with that? You would simply say, “Oh, well this sucks but hey-it’s LEGAL?”
You fucking shitstained, herpes-fested, lice-cuntmaggot.
Did you even bother to read the law cited? I don’t think so. There are exceptions:
If I was Arar, I would probably bepretty anger and upset.
I hope your opinion of me changes one day.
You’re overlooking the fact that it’s US policy not to transport anyone to a country where he’ll be tortured.
Arar’s rendering to Syria was illegal. You don’t have to take my word for it:
We do not have the full report, and the article you linked to does not even mention the fact that there exceptions were a person can be transferred to a country where it is likely he will be tortured. The CAT does not apply under US law to aliens where there are reasonable grounds to believe “the alien is a danger to the security of the United States.”
Arar was seen as a danger to the security of the US. If want to say the grounds were not reasonable, then we will need to conclude a full investigation and conduct legal hearings on the issue. As it stands now, there is no reason to conclude that the law was broken.
So Arar has the presumption of guilt but the American agents who put him on a plane for Syria have the presumption of innocence?
I think it’s clear enough by now that 2.5" is a misanthrope masquerading as a nihilist.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38773.html
Good a time as any to bring this up. The McClatchy Report, which underlines some of our worst fears, that is to say, that any number of detainees are innocent victims. being guilty of nothing more than being accused.
For instance:
Look at what we have become, what fear and vengefulness have made of us.
And malice, and sadism.
Presumption of guilt has nothing to do with what happened to Arar. He was not accused of breaking US law. I am not sure what standard of proof applies to possible violation of reasonableness standard. I do not think it actually a criminal statute. But the point is that no evidence has been brought forth that the belief that Arar was a threat was unreasonable.
Shoes on rather the wrong foot, don’t you think? Wouldn’t it be the responsibility of those who detain him to have a reasonable case that such detainment is sensible because of verifiable evidence?
And beyond him, what of these others, as reported above? How many people we have detained, do you suppose, are entirely or substantially innocent. And isn’t one too many? Being as we are the Americans, the champions of liberty and justice.
Maybe it we were looking forward at what the actors were going to do. Or if it was the present and we were looking at what they were doing. But if we are looking back to the past and asking if they did something legally wrong. We need some evidence to say it was wrong. It is not like someone is seeking an injunction; this is accusation that the law was violated.
Calling America the champions of liberty is just rhetoric. Empty and false rhetoric when you consider slavery, Jim Crow, the treatment of Native Americans, and the homophobic laws. But as I have said before, I do not want to get into the morality of this issue.