"We will change human rights laws in order to keep people safe" could mean any number of things. What if they waned to get a picture of your balls and put them on national TV in the name of security?
Think about this in the context of...let's say...someone suggesting internment of all Muslims. That's a pretty obvious human rights violation, but should we change those laws in the hopes that is solves extremist attacks?
Since Trump is a huge wrestling fan and once thought Vince died in a limo explosion, let me present to you Eric Bischoff.
I don't want to give up my rights. As cliche as it sounds but losing my rights is exactly what the terrorist want and if that happens they are winning.
because laws are supposed to apply indiscriminately, paying no mind to the charged person or the goal of the prosecution isn't that something you want for yourself?
of course, that's where you go with it. yeah, internment of all muslims would be patently horrible and unjust. if that is what she proposes, then i'd be against that.
there's no violation or reduction of human rights that, if performed, would help win the fight against radicalism and terrorism it only appeals to a certain base of voters who want vengeance and retribution, which ironically is exactly what jihadists want
Really it could be anything. Just because user dome foam doesn't think like a totalitarian doesn't mean someone asking for the authority to abandon any human rights laws she views as inconvenient won't.
Right but if they change the HR laws in such a way that one executive action can result in the internment thing without actually suggesting it, how would you feel?
Here are the portions of the UK's Human Rights Act. Please let me know which you'd feel comfortable eliminating. https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights/human-rights-act The Act sets out your human rights in a series of ‘Articles’. Each Article deals with a different right. These are all taken from the ECHR and are commonly known as ‘the Convention Rights’: Article 2 Right to life Article 3 Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment Article 4 Freedom from slavery and forced labour Article 5 Right to liberty and security Article 6 Right to a fair trial Article 7 No punishment without law Article 8 Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence Article 9 Freedom of thought, belief and religion Article 10 Freedom of expression Article 11 Freedom of assembly and association Article 12 Right to marry and start a family Article 14 Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms Protocol 1, Article 1 Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property Protocol 1, Article 2 Right to education Protocol 1, Article 3 Right to participate in free elections Protocol 13, Article 1 Abolition of the death penalty
What in your opinion would be a good example of getting rid of human rights laws? In what ways would getting rid or relaxing human rights laws make us safer?
nope. that is not what islamic terrorists want. terrorists generally have a goal in mind. and the means to that goal is violence. the IRA? their goal was autonomy. hezbollah? get rid of israel. we could go on and on. what is the recent trend of muslim terror attacks in the west? there is no cohesive unit. no goal. the only goal is death and destruction.
I can't believe we're genuinely having to discuss "what are the downsides to weakening human rights protections?"
new definition of insanity: posting this for the fourth or fifth time on this message board, expecting someone will actually read it https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
Some guy on NPR was talking about it. Basically he said that even without this level of sloppiness, the NSA's monitoring of anyone working on its system is sophisticated enough that she probably would have been caught anyway.
Islamic terrorist want to instill terror and impact our daily lives. They kill 6 in England and people go crazy and start talking about getting rid of fundamental rights as if that is normal. If all they wanted was death and destruction they'd blow up cars like they did in Kabul which killed 150.
lots of us have read it and other things that we try to employ when talking to resident mouth breathers about ISIS but if you didn't notice they don't care they want boom boom bang bang dead brown people
there's nothing wrong with this in general application. I hate a knee-jerk as much as you seem to the problem here is that, as applied to conventional "human rights," there are none that she could later discuss in detail that would make it understandable If she later comes up with an explanation that doesn't actually fall under "human rights," then you'll be right but she'll be a moron!
Who is freaking out? You asked what was wrong with what she said. We answered "getting rid of human rights is not a good thing" if you consider that freaking out then IDK what to say.
People should hang for disgusting shit like that. I mean christ, he only really donated 95$, because he donated 5k to Jay-Z's charity. "According to the report published in February, Rodriguez operated the foundation and donated $5,000 to Jay-Z’s Shawn Carter Scholarship Fund and $90 to a Little League Baseball club in Miami."
Terrorists have killed, what, 500 people total in western, civilized nations over the past few years? I'm not trying to minimize the gravity of that, or the greater effect beyond loss of human life (the terror part), but the stuff it elicits is just comical. People are probably more united on the goal of defeating ISIS than anything else presently. The bickering over the method only reveals prejudices and ulterior policy motives
wait a sec... if you tell me those godless heathens are responsible for the Starbucks cups without jesus, then I change my entire attitude on the subject nuke 'em
I had to drink my coffee in red cup or was that I couldn't drink my coffee in a red cup. I forget which one I was outraged about
here's the corresponding article. http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/06/politics/russian-hackers-planted-fake-news-qatar-crisis/index.html Timeline for all this is certainly interesting. Trump goes to Saudi Arabia, pledges to sell them a bunch of weapons (most of which Obama had already promised it seems), Russia and the Saudis hold a series of high level talks last week. Suddenly this crisis flares up. Edit: Also interesting, the Trump tweets this morning are peculiar given that the FBI is in Doha investigating a link with Russians planting a story.
well... i prescribe to john mccain's anti-torture stance. slavery and forced labour? bad. liberty and security? important. right to a fair trial? yep. no punishment without law? right. respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence? i'm fine giving up on privacy for security. see: patriot act. freedom of thought, belief and religion? you post pro-terror shit online, you lose your "human rights." freedom of expression? same as above. freedom of assembly and association? no gathering calling for establishment of the caliphate, sharia law etc. the rest i wouldn't fuck with. essentially, if they decide that limiting Islamic terrorism would be aided by stricter guidelines on the type of speech that can be said (supporting the muslim caliphate, supporting isis, etc.), and limiting the freedom to assemble and state as such....i'm fine with it. along those same lines, i am fine giving up my own privacy so that the government can isolate those that identify and say those types of things.
The goal is to bait us into attacking them in Syria leading to the clusterfuck that will eventually lead to a world war and the apocalypse. They also want just shit in general to be worse for us. I'm still pissed I have to take off my god damn shoes to get on a plane and you're acting fine with much more intrusive shit than that apparently.