Comment Re:Nice wording (Score 1) 179
... there is a widespread lack of knowledge in the US about the UN bill of human rights and that the US has ratified it. (At least the more basic parts where it clearly says that human rights should be applied equally regardless of nationality.)
What you're referring to is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which the US helped to draft. And of course it doesn't include the ridiculous "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", which is a completely useless exercise in flexing international power, including a huge caveat on all of its supposed protection that basically says nothing in it applies if it gets in the way of the United Nation's plans and activities.
But the ICCPR doesn't say that a country cannot confer rights to its own citizens that it doesn't confer to others, only that the rights spelled out in the covenant must be conferred to everyone. And there is nothing like the Constitution's 4th Amendment protections against search and seizure in the Covenant. The closest it comes is a blanket statement that "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence...", but those "arbitrary or unlawful" qualifiers are a huge loophole, especially the way the US administration has been defending their metadata collection as lawfully authorized.
And the huge loophole right at the top of the Covenant is this:
In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation
Don't you know the US is threatened by ISIS / ISIL / Al Shibob / Al Queuidea / whatever, and with that can justify throwing out those protections.