Do Human Rights Exist?

[Geezer]

I'm not sure that what was true of Nazi soldiers necessarily applies to other soldiers.

.

 

 

The Kent State shootings—also known as the May 4 massacre or the Kent State massacre^]—occurred at Kent State University in the U.S. city of Kent, Ohio, and involved the shooting of unarmed college students by the Ohio National Guard on Monday, May 4, 1970. The guardsmen fired 67 rounds over a period of 13 seconds, killing four students and wounding nine others, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis.

[Geezer]

 

 

And if we don’t want some other country imposing their will on us then we better continue to have a strong military..

 

There is a vast difference between a military strong enough to protect against foreign invaders and a military strength so vast that it is used to carve out an empire.  The US has zero risk of invasion by those who would impose their will on us, especially in a nuclear era. 

 

Meanwhile, our strong government, including military and all its various forms, including CIA, NSA, etc... are in fact imposing their will on the American people and taking rights from us that have been promised by our constitution.  Case in point: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/

 

 

Yep.

[SquareOne]

The Kent State shootings—also known as the May 4 massacre or the Kent State massacre^]—occurred at Kent State University in the U.S. city of Kent, Ohio, and involved the shooting of unarmed college students by the Ohio National Guard on Monday, May 4, 1970. The guardsmen fired 67 rounds over a period of 13 seconds, killing four students and wounding nine others, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis.

 

A bit like Bloody Sunday then, which I also mentioned.

 

Nonetheless, Bloody Sunday and the Kent State shootings are different types of situation to Nazi Germany.  I think it would be a fool's errand to argue that they are truly alike.

[Geezer]

 

The Kent State shootings—also known as the May 4 massacre or the Kent State massacre^]—occurred at Kent State University in the U.S. city of Kent, Ohio, and involved the shooting of unarmed college students by the Ohio National Guard on Monday, May 4, 1970. The guardsmen fired 67 rounds over a period of 13 seconds, killing four students and wounding nine others, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis.

 

A bit like Bloody Sunday then, which I also mentioned.

 

Nonetheless, Bloody Sunday and the Kent State shootings are different types of situation to Nazi Germany.  I think it would be a fool's errand to argue that they are truly alike.

 

Since I served in the U.S. military as did my son, I based my POV on my experience. The similarities are this. Soldiers, especially career officers, follow the orders of their superiors without hesitation or questions. In the time of war and/or during combat failure to follow the order of a superior is punishable by death. In extreme situations the officer in charge or the ranking NCO can shoot the offender dead on the spot. That would be unusual and extreme but it has happened.

 

The basic point being this, soldiers follow orders...period. And high ranking career officers are the worst offenders. They simply have too much at stake to even think about disobeying. Take that reality to the level of the President-Commander-in-Chief and it is simply beyond comprehension that any officer would even think about disobeying a command issued by the President. Ain't gonna happen and if it did he'd be arrested on the spot and subject to court martial and probably sentenced to life in prison. The power the President of the U.S. has over the military is scary as hell. He is essentially a dictator when he's wearing the hat of the Commander-in-Chief. And that is probably the same power most world leaders possess, which is even more scary.

 

 

The commanding officer of the National Guard squad issued an order for them to fire on unarmed students and they obeyed that order without hesitation. Think about that.

[SquareOne]

It is not the same thing.

 

I've already said that there is a similarity - in fact I brought up Bloody Sunday.  So basically, I think we're in agreement.

[Vigile]

It is not the same thing.

 

I've already said that there is a similarity - in fact I brought up Bloody Sunday.  So basically, I think we're in agreement.

 

You aren't being clear.  You say they are different but the same/similar. 

 

Why were soldiers in Russia and Germany more likely to turn their power on their own people than militaries in the US or UK? 

 

For the record, I don't think we'll see a repeat.  Rule by force isn't nearly as powerful as rule through propaganda and marginalization.  There is no threat to the current power structure from the masses which would tempt the use of force. 

 

BTW, thanks for correcting me on the use of hoard/horde.  Time to lay off the vodka as the brain cells are revolting. 

[SquareOne]

Burnedout, I think what you have said carries a lot of truth, and echoes something I believe too.  You seem to suggest, correct me if I'm wrong, that we have a right to free speech etc. because we can speak and nobody can legitimately stop us from doing so.  The right comes from our inherent capacity to speak.  We are alive, therefore we have a right to live, and nobody can stop us. 

 

 

It's a different way of looking at rights to what I am used to.

 

In fact though, it is exactly the way that British law has typically operated.  We don't (really) have a bill of rights that sets out what rights are protected.  Rather, the government just tells us what we can't do, restricting our otherwise unlimited freedom.  And I prefer it that way.  There is more freedom there, and there is more certainty there.  (Though, this has changed with the introduction of European Rights law).

 

Rights, the way they are used as a legal tool, seem to me to be presumptuously given to us, and defined as needing protection in law.  See for example the US Bill of Rights, or the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

Hmm.  Oh dear Burnedout you've given me too much to think about.  You cheeky devil.  

 

 

Vigile

Why were soldiers in Russia and Germany more likely to turn their power on their own people than militaries in the US or UK? 

In Nazi Germany, the government ran a persistent campaign to dehumanize certain groups of people, most notably Jewish people.  This was to the point where for many Germans, including soldiers, the Jewish people were seen as subhuman.  It became the goal of the government to commit genocide against the Jewish race.  They therefore had less conscience about killing these people when ordered to do so.  This is evident from writings and diaries of German officers in the day.  

 

I don't know enough about Russia to comment - and if you look back - I haven't mentioned Russia.

 

The incidents in the US and the UK were isolated incidents.  I don't think that soldiers of the British army would, in the present day, follow an order to march into Manchester city centre and shoot civilians.  I think they would rather disobey orders.  I hope that my belief is never put to the test.

 

Now, could Britain be indoctrinated in the same way as Nazi Germany, leading to similar results?  I would hope it never happen, but there is no reason why it could not.

[Galien]

No, we have the right to breathe, but thats it really.

[Ravenstar]

I have no doubt that any army would fire or turn on the people if ordered by the government that pays their wages (though not exactly because of that) to a point anyway. Some may protest - but soldiers are trained, indoctrinated, brainwashed in a way really, to do what they are told by authority figures. The discipline that creates a good soldier isn't heavy on individuality and/or philosophy. A platoon has to work as a unit - not a group of individuals.

 

It's one of the reasons young men are usually chosen. They are easily manipulated by their own psychology. Testosterone and peer approval and competition are pretty strong in young males.

 

nope, no doubt at all. Of course their superiors would have to give them the proper motivation... and assure them that what they were doing was best for the country, yada, yada, yada...

[Galien]

 

 

Do human rights exist?

 

History would seem to indicate that “rights” are something the strong grant to the weak and that has always been so. In times of oppression the strong simply do not grant rights to the weak they enslave, abuse, and exploit them. Historically rights are something that is obtained by force. That is why a strong military is an essential element in the protection and guarantee of human rights. And something our younger generation is apparently unaware of but that is probably because they don't read history.

 

The government should always be feared because tyranny is only one election away. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." a quotation by John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton.  

 

I agree with the bolded part, but the part about a strong military doesn't follow.  In fact, militaries quite often serve as vehicles to take the rights of others away.  This has very much been the case with the strong US military.  Just ask the citizens of Panama, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, and a long, long, long list of other countries that we have invaded in order to "Protect American Interests." 

 

We almost never have to fight back against the invading hoards -- despite what the newspapers and the White House press room might try and convince you of.  Tyranny historically has almost always come from one's own government, and thus a strong military has very often proven to be counterproductive to human rights.  This is very much the case with the US today. 

 

I read history. 

 

I think you're inadvertently confirming my points. The strong dominate the weak and that has been so from the beginning of time. And I believe your reference to a strong military only confirms my point. The U.S. military does impose its will, and U.S. policy, on other countries….why? Because they can. And it is U.S. foreign policy to put U.S. interest first. And if we don’t want some other country imposing their will on us then we better continue to have a strong military.

 

The authors of our constitution understood the power of a strong military and took steps to protect the citizenry from the military, such as the right of private citizens to bear arms, restricting the role of the military to foreign threats rather than domestic policing, etc. A some point a strong military is all that stands between freedom and servitude. The countries you referenced became subject to U.S. influence because they did not have the military strength to resist or defy U.S. actions.

 

The playground bully will always dominate the weak until an adult restrains them or someone kicks their ass. Ultimately, superior fire power is all that insures tranquility. It is what it is, but I agree that tyranny is always a possibility and the military is the vehicle that will ultimately bring about a sucessful coup. In fact a coup is virtually impossible without the aid of the military.

 

And in spite of the nonsensical argument that U.S. soldiers would never fire on U.S. citizens I seriously doubt that is true. Soldiers follow orders and the trials of the Nazi soldiers conclusively proved that. We live in a dangerous and politically unstable world.

 

So this being the case, why do we still teachour children not to bully others? Everything above, and everything they see in the world makes it clear that is what happens. Why does anyone think that doing it on a country scale is any different from doing it on a personal scale?

[Vigile]

I don't know enough about Russia to comment - and if you look back - I haven't mentioned Russia..

 

I mentioned Russia because what happened there made what happened in Nazi Germany seem like a drop in the bucket.  Soldiers there, like soldiers in Germany, just followed orders as they were told.  The same is also true of China under Mao. 

 

Regarding the government propaganda campaign in Germany, it's actually the US that has historically had the most successful propaganda campaigns. The German campaign was largely autocratic and clumsy, yet ultimately effective enough for the government to achieve its goals. The American campaign was successful without being autocratic.  For example, an entire nation was transformed from one of leaning isolationist to a jingoistic crowd willing to sacrifice for the war effort. 

 

 

I don't think that soldiers of the British army would, in the present day, follow an order to march into Manchester city centre and shoot civilians.

 

I do.  Before it happens, there would be a propaganda campaign that paints those citizens as some form of enemy of the state and the soldiers would believe they were just doing their duty.  History is replete with such examples.  Including modern history.  Look at how quickly the Occupy Wall Street protestors were framed as lazy bums who were disrupting business and keeping honest folk from earning a living.  We are very, very good at PR today. 

 

I would argue the main reason we won't see it happen is because it's unnecessary; not that it just couldn't happen because our modern soldiers wouldn't do such a thing. 

[SquareOne]

I do.  Before it happens, there would be a propaganda campaign that paints those citizens as some form of enemy of the state and the soldiers would believe they were just doing their duty.

I was talking about a situation sans-propaganda.

 

That is why I deliberately added this sentence.  "Now, could Britain be indoctrinated in the same way as Nazi Germany, leading to similar results?  I would hope it never happen, but there is no reason why it could not."

 

 

[Vigile]

The point is, humans are all vulnerable to these sorts of government abuses.  Soldiers behave in predictable ways as do governments.

 

The British government, in fact, has shown itself to be one of the worst abusers of 'human rights' in modern history.  Sri Lanka is just one of many, many examples. 

[SquareOne]

The British government, in fact, has shown itself to be one of the worst abusers of 'human rights' in modern history.  Sri Lanka is just one of many, many examples. 

 

Yes, Britain has been pretty bad.  Pretty much every old colonial power has done terrible, terrible things.  I'm not sure what you're reffering to re: Sri Lanka though.

[Vigile]

 

The British government, in fact, has shown itself to be one of the worst abusers of 'human rights' in modern history.  Sri Lanka is just one of many, many examples. 

 

Yes, Britain has been pretty bad.  Pretty much every old colonial power has done terrible, terrible things.  I'm not sure what you're reffering to re: Sri Lanka though.

 

http://exiledonline.com/when-pigs-fly-and-scold-brits-lecturing-sri-lanka/

[Geezer]

Human nature insures that the utopia envisioned by idealist will never exist on a large scale or even on a small scale for any lengthy period of time. Greed and self centeredness is inherent to the human race.  Narcissism is a common human trait. Somebody, actually lots of somebody’s, will always want more, some will have more talents than others, and there will always be those that crave the spot light.

 

Narcissistic people have to be controlled because their unquenchable thirst for power, if left unchecked, will ultimately turn them into monsters that will destroy everything and everyone that opposes them.

 

Even though apparently few Americans are aware of it the U.S. is a republic not a democracy. The framers of our constitution wanted to insured the majority could not dominate the minority.  And even with these safeguards we have had numerous atrocities and human rights issues throughout our history. Human rights are more of an ideal than a reality everywhere in the world and that has always been the case.   As another poster noted, in reality, we have privileges, granted by the ruling authorities. Guaranteed human rights are an idealistic illusion.  

 

 

And what happens when your “rights” infringe on mine? War or at least riots are often the conflict resolution of choice. And the result is the strong impose their will on the weak. Idealist cringe when they are struck square in the face with reality but it is what it is and that has been so since the beginning of time.

 

 

 

[RankStranger]

It's amazing to me how people think there's something unique about what the Nazis did - and that it couldn't possibly happen here in America (or Britain in this case). I think this comes from how history is framed - the fact that we focus almost solely on the Nazis' overt racism. So people end up thinking that if we're not overtly racist, then we ccouldn't possibly be like those people.

 

But the fact is that we dehumanize and imprison MILLIONS of marginalized people (drug addicts are an easy example, but not the only one). Based on massive government-sponsored propaganda efforts, we give up rights wholesale in the name of the war on drugs, terrorism... or whatever the latest societal boogey-man happens to be. We kill and imprison without trial, curtail free speech and movement, conduct invasive searches and wholesale spying on citizens - all in the name of fighting 'terrorism' (which is demonstrably a far lesser threat than, say, lightening strikes).

 

So IMO, we differ from the Nazis only in degree - and in our chosen boogey-men. The lesson we SHOULD learn from the Nazis and similar despotic regimes is the ease with which we can all be manipulated via propaganda and fear to dehumanize our fellow man. And the ease with which the public will accept - and authorities will carry out - all manner of injustice in the name of some 'greater good'. In that respect, I don't think there was anything unique to the Germans. We Americans (and Brits, and plenty of other nations) have demonstrated that we could easily do the same thing under similar circumstances.

[SquareOne]

Agreed.  That's what I've said all along.