I think you mean every US citizen has them, not everyone on the planet.

Oh and, hi Chris. Where ya been?

The International Bill of Human Rights

The United Nations wrote:

Human rights are those rights that belong to every individual - man or woman, girl or boy, infant or elder - simply because she or he is a human being. They embody the basic standards without which people cannot realize their inherent human dignity.

Human rights are universal: they are the birthright of every member of the human family. No one has to earn or deserve human rights.

Human rights are inalienable: you cannot lose these rights any more than you can cease to be a human being. Human rights are indivisible: you cannot be denied a right because someone decides that it is "less important" or "non-essential". Human rights are interdependent: all human rights are part of a complementary framework.

Human rights are both abstract and practical. They hold up the inspiring vision of a free, justice and peaceful world and set minimum standards for how both individuals and institutions should treat people. They also empower people to take action to demand and defend their rights and the rights of others.

The universal standards of human rights were not developed overnight. The major pressure for the internationalization of human rights followed the Second World War, during which totalitarian regimes grossly violated human rights in their own and occupied territories, and were responsible for the elimination of entire groups of people because of their race, religion or nationality. The experience of that war resulted in a widespread conviction that effective international protection of human rights was one of the essential conditions of international peace and progress. This conviction was subsequently reflected in and reinforced by the Charter of the United Nations.

Although human rights were principally defined and codified in the twentieth century, human rights values are rooted in the literature, values and religious teachings of almost every culture.

C'est tout

Niceguy7 wrote:

As much as those Gitmo prisoners should rot in hell, they still have those ten rights and they are guaranteed them by the Constitution while they are here in America.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought those prisoners had not had a fair trial? Therefore they are not officially guilty and as of yet do not deserve to rot in hell until either their guilt or innocence has been proved. I am sure many of the prisoners are guilty of the crimes they have committed but there are also innocents in that place.

What worries me about shutting down the prison is that I do not trust America to try them properly. I would rather they went before an International court.

^^ He makes some fairly interesting points.
There was a small historical error at around 1:25, though. He said, "we've had to amend the Bill of Rights an additional 17 times," which isn't true. The Bill of Rights hasn't been amended once since its establishment in 1791.

DamnImGood wrote:

:confused:

Are there not 27 amendments to the US Constitution? 10 + 17 = 27?

The Bill of Rights only includes the first ten amendments to the constitution. There hasn't been any amendments to the Bill of Rights (by that I mean it hasn't changed); it's stayed the same since it was ratified over two hundred years ago.

All 17 amendments you see after the first ten aren't considered the Bill of Rights. I think what Carlin meant to say was that we've amended the constitution an additional 17 times, not amended the Bill of Rights.

Well amendments don't list every single right in the U.S. Constitution. For example, like my God given right and duty to revolt and overthrow an oppressive government.

The Bill of Rights protects US citizens, which the individuals at hand are not. Nor are they human beings and thus need not be treated as such.

And no, not all freedoms of the people or powers/restrictions of the government are listed in the Constitution. The reserved powers clause and the elastic clause take care of that.

Are you referring to alleged terrorists?

Fuck the Bill of Rights. This is what matters:

Declaration of Independence wrote:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Niceguy7 wrote:

We have that right as well.

But good luck overthrowing the U.S. military.

I'll ask them to step down nicely then use the fourteen nuclear bombs I've built in my basement.

Steven wrote:

I'll ask them to step down nicely then use the fourteen nuclear bombs I've built in my basement.

Good luck.

Niceguy7 wrote:

We have that right as well.

But good luck overthrowing the U.S. military.

The same US military that can't fight a foreign insurgency?

Yes. Regardless of what some like to believe and what the media likes to put out at times, US Soldiers didn't just storm in to a house, pull out the guy with the longest beard and label him a terrorist. These individuals are insurgent, terrorist sympathizers.

Niceguy7 wrote:

I agree. Shit, my moderate is showing...

Anyway, whoever -repped me, give me proof that most of 1200 prisoners were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.


Northwest Flight 253: al Qaeda Leader Behind Terror Plot Was Released by U.S. - ABC News
Check that out.

That's your logic showing.

To the person who neg repped me, please leave your name and a call back number. Other wise I shall consider you a terrorist sympathizer for the comment you left.

Some people say that these individuals never actually detonated an explosive or fired a round in to anyone. That MIGHT be true but look at it this way. If I want someone dead but don't want to personally do the deed or don't know how it should be done, I can hire a hit man. If the hit man does the job but is then caught and gives my name to the authorities as well, who deserves a sentence? Just the guy I hired or both he and I?
It is the same situation with these masterminds.

Oh so everyone the military has "captured" has been a confirmed terrorist? Soldiers do just storm into houses and grab the guy with a beard and their intel can come from anywhere, be it his neighbor or the chain of command

And what's wrong with being a sympathizer? Would it be wrong of us to sympathize if the roles were reversed? Would we suddenly be terrorists if someone invaded our country and we silently cheered when the invaders were hurt/killed? Of course not

Calling someone a terrorist sympathizer because they disagree with you isn't very well thought out, I'm afraid. Its very Hannity/Beck like.