UN Bill of Rights

[adymond]

Yeah, this sentence caught my eye right away. It seems that it can be interpreted a number of ways, particularly when considering the UN's anti-gun stance. Any language experts want to try to dissect the sentence for us?

So, the UN is anti-gun, and they seek to guarantee a 'right' to 'security of person'? WTF? I guess that they never got the memo that when seconds count, a UN deployment is only months away!

The thing you are all forgetting is "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." If you are exercising a right contrary to the UN purposes or principles your rights are null and void. So obviously the stupid inhabitants of Darfur have not learned to live within the purposes or principles of the UN or else the UN would step in and save them all.

I'll take a crack at that sentence even though I am not a linguist or lawyer (though I have heard I am a rather cunning linguist so maybe that qualifies me).

"Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law"

I think I took out the bullcrap and here's what it looks like to me:

"It is essential that human rights should be protected by rule of law so that man will not be compelled to rebell against tyranny and opression."

Now that sounds fine and all except it seems to condemn the need for rebellion against tyranny and opression. When one looks at this in light of what goes on in Africa alone it seems to be nothing more than a stinking pille of shite.

[Legion_Prime]

Wow, this thread grew quick!

Between warrantless wiretapping, imprisonment without trial, torture, and a few other gems, I'm somewhat of a cynic on "the Constitution works" right now. Check back with me in a month.

I love this, I will never cease to be amazed at how some people think that people who are not citizens of this country nor in this country should somehow be magically protected by it and why enemy combatants who flaunt every regulation there is between the Geneva and Hague conventions should have any right to protection by them.
I'm guessing you are referring to the Patriot act. Many of the wiretapping amendments expired at the end of 2005 and have been irrelevant for nearly three years now. The main things the Patriot Act did was to revise the definitions of different forms of communication, mainly reclassify voicemail as a stored communication like email rather than as a voice conversation, and expand the ability of the courts to issue warrants, previously a warrant had to be issued by a judge in whose jurisdiction the storage location was physically present in and allowed a judge ruling over where the crime was being investigated to issue a warrant regardless of the physical storage was at. In the case of foreign communications it expanded the abilities of FISA from just surveillance of agents of foreign agents (traditional cold war counterintelligence) and access to records pertaining to them. It allowed roving warrants which enable us to be able to record a suspects communication even if he moves around using different locations as a method to thwart traditional wiretap warrants. It also expands access to records that businesses keep regarding suspects and allows us to not only access their records but also to search property such as hotel rooms, rental cars and rental storage units/lockers. The time limits on wiretap and search warrants are also extended to prolong their usefulness and help unburden the courts which have also been expanded from 9 to 11 judges. It also expands upon the restrictions on surveillance established by FISA whenever communications may involve a US citizen so as to protect Americans rights to privacy and free speech.
The remainder of the Patriot act deals mostly with restrictions and procedures to help battle money laundering and securing our borders. Have there been warrantless wiretaps? Without a doubt, will there continue to be? You can bet the farm on it. There will always be corruption greed and graft, it's just part of the human experience, however saying that this legislature allows it does not seem to be an accurate statement.
This has been a lot of typing for me so I will have to come back later to the myriad ways that the enemy combatants in the middle eastern theater violate the Geneve and Hauge convention and why they therefore have no reasonable expectation to protection under either let alone the ludicrous idea that they somehow for some reason should ever be afforded even the slightest consideration of the protections of the laws and constitution of a country they are not only not a citizen of and have never set foot in and are actively engaged in warfare against.