U.D. of Human Rights: too liberal?

[Iverson]

Almost 55 years ago, the UN General Assembly passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You can read it here, among other places:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

The whole thing is worth a read, but a few tidbits stuck out. Consider these.

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Two questions follow.

1. Since the mainstream viewpoint is that "everything's changed," and US security is paramount, is this Declaration unacceptably far left for the polity?

2. If so, and if we decide to accomodate that viewpoint, then what needs to happen in order for this 1948 Declaration to be acceptable to today's mainstream? Alternately, if not, what evidence do we have that the Declaration is in synch with Mr. and Mrs. Middle America?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

[emad]

1. Absolutely nothing wrong with the UDHR:

Articles 5, 9 and 10 merely voice the bottom line of what is universally acceptable.

Q1: US security is paramount, always has been. It's just that the scoundrels in office have got more adept at covering up the cover ups that result in atrocity.

Nothing like a gun slinging, war crazed oil industry pimp hell bent on re election to re enforce the UDHR. He's corralled himself into his own cess pit and will end up bankrupting himself, his family and his political allies.

Q2: The Constitution would have to be re written. Can you see that happening? Or is it more likely Mr & Mrs Middle America will finally get a wake up call on what political bankrolling really means?

[greatauntoftriplets]

2. Human security is paramount.

Who said people in the United States are better than everyone else? Except for George W. Bush, of course.

[indigo32]

3. I have a framed print of it on my wall

I would have to very sadly say that people have changed their viewpoint on some of these things. We cannot choose to accomodate this. We should work against it.

[Iverson]

4. serious thread, droppin' like a stone ...

Kick!
:donut:

[Iverson]

5. Nader Lieberman Dean I-P Race and Gender

OK, it's not one of the old and comfortable screaming prompts, but that's why I posted it. Kick!

:donut: :donut: :donut: :donut:

[gottaB]

6. No Way

1. I take issue with the premise that "everything has changed" is a mainstream viewpoint. Foremost it's an item of propaganda. Secondarily, it captures the mood of certain Beltway types. Perhaps they don't realize that they are being manipulated. I can smell the manipulation from 3000 miles away.

2. The rethugs (using that sobriquet advisedly) have brought out the worst in the polity. Hostility to the U.N. and general xenophobia has been growing within the Republican base for years. Since Selection 2000 it's been put on the national agenda.

3. Now that the extremists are empowered, the world has few options but to accomodate their policies. Well, you can register disagreement, and do what you can to minimize the damage, but the dogs have been unleashed and the town dogcatcher ain't about to put them down.

4. On the question of crafting a popular alternative politics, I say keep talking sense, and let the Republicans run on their record. There are signs that Mr. and Mrs. Peoria are getting awfully fed up with the carnage and general meanness of this crowd in Washington. These signs include: Bush's sinking popularity in opinion polls; local initiatives against the PATRIOT Act; the Media's willingness to begin asking tough questions; leftist authors on the best seller lists; general anti-incumbency sentiment as manifested in the popularity of Howard Dean or the California debacle. (That last one is Crazy, I know, but I do believe some of the anger at Davis is misdirected and if you were to really go down that road there are signs pointing to Crawford all along the way. If they end up recalling Davis, and Bustamante wins, take that as indication that the people are somewhat clueful.)