I always find it interesting when people talk about their rights in these contexts. If the government can legally conscript you, surely you don’t have any rights?
As far as I know the US is the only country with enumerated rights for citizens. “Human rights” are discussed in international contexts but don’t seem to have any legal basis on the local level.
If some fascist gets to be in charge of the US, can’t they just change the rules, ignore them entirely, or just use the media to change the truth and make people actually support their actions? You almost had this happen in 2021. Let alone any extra-judicial actions that governments take in the name of national security.
I firmly believe that if even any so-called democratic government wants to do something nominally illegal to you they will find a way. Maybe in a so-called democratic country decades later you’ll be exonerated or the perpetrators will be punished but that won’t be much help to you.
No. That's why we have these things called "separation of power," and "checks and balances."
No single branch of government is all powerful. In fact, it is a testament to the strength of the constitutional republic the founders built, that even with a man like Donald Trump abusing his powers and a media bolstering his lies, ultimately he was forced to step down, and though justice is slow, he is finally seeing justice for his many crimes.
And if the executive branch decides to ignore the ruling, there isn't anything the Supreme Court can do about it.
See: Worcester v. Georgia
This is one of the problems with a Supreme Court that is making rulings that the majority of people don't agree with. If the Supreme Court loses its legitimacy and the other branches simply start ignoring it, it will take a lot of work to get any power back.
You guys aren't wrong. I believe it was Ben Franklin who famously said, when asked of the new government in the US, what kind it was, he replied, "A republic, if you can keep it." Any democracy is, obviously, only as just or as free as its electorate. As George Carlin pointed out in one of his standups, "If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Garbage in, garbage out."
My point is, however, that one man alone cannot be strong enough to bring it all down. There is enough distribution of power for the system to be robust. By irony, the very political tribalism which is ubiquitously hated and lamented by pundits itself creates a sort of political competition; there is very high incentive to hold the other party or incumbent(s) accountable when they abuse their power or make mistakes, as this benefits themselves politically. Of course, the downside to this system, as we've witnessed in recent years, is that both parties are quick to criticize the other side for their sins, but once in power they commit the very same sins with no self-awareness of the hypocrisy. Although, I wonder how much of that is due to McConnell and the GOP's loose morals, vs. the GOP itself being nigh unrecognizable from what it once was. The party of Reagan, Bush, and Romney is no more; the latter of which I was just reading, described in the press as a "pariah within his own party."
The US government barely survived an incompetent carnival barker, let's not give the founders too much credit.
The system they set up has far too much ambiguity and survives only as long as honorable people are in the correct places at the correct times and _just_ barely enough were, this time, to prevent it all from completely crashing down.
> [...] ultimately he was forced to step down, and though justice is slow, he is finally seeing justice for his many crimes.
I mean I'll take it, but he's only being prosecuted for a small fraction of the shit he did, even if we ignore his whole life before the presidency. Our justice system has been openly corrupted by the rich and the powerful.
Well, there is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human..., which is to say, it's complicated. Notice USSR did not vote against the proposed universal declaration, implying they were willing to go along with whatever everyone else decided.
So, the person quoted in the article has at least some grounds for arguing about human rights, although you might consider the grounds fairly weak. I furthermore claim that the only compassionate response is to agree even if the person isn't on the strongest ground in a formal legal sense where someone might actually be able to do something about it.
Rights are great but who is going to enforce them? If your local sheriff doesn’t believe in said rights good luck suing your way to get them… By the time you get to the appropriate courts it will be years and millions of dollars in legal fees
You just recently had an event that almost overthrew the executive branch. The US Constitution is literally paper thin and the only thing actually protecting it are the institutions and people behind them.
Agree about the “paper-thin” part, because laws only mean something if they are supported by institutions and people. But I don’t think we can say the executive branch was “almost” overthrown. That’s hyperbole.
I'm not sure that the events of 2021 were seriously endangering the executive branch or any part of the US government. Yes a riot put lawmakers in physical danger, but if the rioters had actually taken over that building that wouldn't make them the lawmakers. It'd probably make them dead. More concerning was the electors thing, but I reckon the most likely outcome would have been a lawsuit and the tightening of the laws around electors.
US Constitution etc were certainly revolutionary when they were written, but many countries have adapted similar or improved policies when it comes to basic human rights.
The US also has forced conscription. It hasn't been used since the 70s, but the legal/constitutional ability of the government to do so is pretty much undisputed (although there is some surprisingly recent controversy about the male only aspect).
The rights being discussed in the article sounds like rights nominal protected by Russian law. So really the question is 'do rights the government grant you count, if that government ignores them?'. In a properly functioning liberal democracy, the answer is 'yes, because there is a co-equal branch of the government (the judiciary) that will not ignore them'. In a country where all aperatasus of the government agree not to respect those rights, then all you have is paper.
although there is some surprisingly recent controversy about the male only aspect
It's back on the table for discussion [1] but it would probably take a serious event to push this in one direction or the other I think. Probably nudging it in the requirement direction is the lack of physically qualified candidates. I have no idea what direction this will ultimately go.
I have proudly served along side women in the US military and witnessed them performing all the duties expected of them not in combat. How random male and female conscripts would be allocated in warfare by the US remains to be seen and I do not know to what extent they have tested this idea. I have sparred with female fighters outside of the military and would be afraid to meet them in battle but these were not random conscripts and in my humble opinion are not very common.
In 2021, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case challenging the constitutionality of it, in part because the court found that Congress was activly looking into it. According to the court, in 2020 a congressional commission tasked with looking into it advised eliminating the male only selective service.
Congress almost did so, to the point where both houses of Congress approved a draft bill that would; however the provision was dropped before a final version was agreed to.
For a country that has not had a draft in half a century, that is a suprising level of controversy.
> As far as I know the US is the only country with enumerated rights for citizens.
I appreciate that you prefaced this with a disclaimer about your ignorance, but it has a weird tone of American exceptionalism to it, and it’s not even close to true. There are quite a lot of countries with “bills of rights”. There’s even a Wikipedia article that attempts to enumerate them.
Was the US the first nation with a Bill of Rights, though? (I'm aware there are many medieval documents that could be construed as such, but I'm talking about universal rights in the modern sense).
If you're really talking about universal rights in the modern sense, that really didn't happen in the US until the 1960's in practice (unless you were white and had the correct chromosomes). Women couldn't vote until the early 20th century, and you could not marry interracially in some states until the 1960's.
Thanks for the correction! I really should have done a quick google search.
From my point of view America is exceptional because their rights are often part of political discourse in a way that I don’t see at home or in my limited exposure to other domestic politics.
Do people then have any rights in the US? Because conscription is one of the powers the Constitution explicitly grants to the Congress.
The historical background is that serving in the military is what able-bodied male citizens do in a republic. Conscription is not supposed to be something that the government does but what the citizens do by the virtue of being citizens. If there is no conscription, you don't have a republic in the traditional sense, because warfare is no longer a public matter.
>I always find it interesting when people talk about their rights in these contexts. If the government can legally conscript you, surely you don’t have any rights?
there are rules in russia about how conscription/etc works. medically fit, mentally stable, etc. ever since they started mobilization they just rubber stamp paperwork that says that they are fit without any medical examination
nea. it works because they are been told that if you don't sign documents you go from here to prison. and from prison to army into first line assault teams but without salary.
Men (citizens and immigrants) aged 18-25 are required to register with the Selective Service. Should the US declare war, conscription could start again. The Constitution doesn't forbid it -- to the contrary, it outlines the process to declare martial law and suspend its ordinary protections.
I think most constitutions have an equivalent. What is unusual about the US is the extent to which there is judge made legislation through re-interpretation and extension of those rights. THis is not just true in the west. Here is the Sri Lankan constitution: https://www.parliament.lk/files/pdf/constitution.pdf - take a look at Chapter III. It is common for cases to be brought under these provisions.
There are international treaties that are incorporated law - e.g. the European Convention on Human Rights. How effective they are varies with national governments (Russia and Turkey are both ECHR, for example). The big variable is whether a country has an independent judiciary that will enforce those rights.
There are definite rights listed in very old laws such as the Magna Carta - and I have read that much of what it granted was already accepted in common law.
Forcible conscription means all of the volunteers are occupied or dead. Putin is pressing criminal prisoners and disliked minorities into service with little training or logistics as bodies to feed monsters of war on the western front, and continue the carnage until he incorrectly believes interest in aid to Ukraine will subside. At the endpoint of when Putin will eventually have to conscript muddle-class Muscovites, teenagers, and elderly men, that horse hair holding the Sword of Damocles over his head is more likely to give way. A substantial number of Russian men of fighting age have already hidden themselves or fled the country.
It isn’t misleading, Kotelniki (the place in the article) is as much a part of Moscow oblast as Khimki or Domodedovo. And people routinely just refer to those areas as Moscow all the time. Beyond that, Moscow subway transit system goes to Kotelniki as well, I just doublechecked that.
Here is an analogy that might help those familiar with the US: it is kind of like Yonkers is to NYC, Chicago suburbs are to Chicago the city, or Burbank is to Los Angeles.
Meduza is a notorious propaganda outlet with a penchant for just blatantly making stuff up.
Considering even twitter (now X) seems to have absolutely no other information aside from the same copy-pasted few sentences despite it being over 24 hours, I’d take it with a grain of salt for now.
Meduza is well known to be funded by the UK FCO project, known for funding propaganda projects such as the push for regime change in Syria, and receiving funding from NATO sources.
Nor are they a “exiled Russian media”. They were founded in Latvia.
Re: my account: I rarely post on the topic of politics, and my last comment on Russia/ukraine was over three weeks ago, and was a discussion on electronic warfare.
> Nor are they a “exiled Russian media”. They were founded in Latvia.
Founded by Russian journalists in Latvia after one of the founders were fired from a Russian media outlet for work unpopular with the Russian government, initially staffed by former employees of the same Russian media outlet.
So, “exiled Russian media” is (if somewgat awkwardly phrased, “Russian exile media” would I think be more natural) reasonably accurate.
They are obliged to serve unless they prove in court that their religion doesn't allow it or there's a serious medical condition. With that said, it's illegal to be delivered to an enlistment office, in such a deeply ill state as Russia though, the laws just don't work.
54 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 119 ms ] threadAs far as I know the US is the only country with enumerated rights for citizens. “Human rights” are discussed in international contexts but don’t seem to have any legal basis on the local level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and...
And the USA has legal conscription as well (at least could), even with enumerated rights.
I firmly believe that if even any so-called democratic government wants to do something nominally illegal to you they will find a way. Maybe in a so-called democratic country decades later you’ll be exonerated or the perpetrators will be punished but that won’t be much help to you.
No single branch of government is all powerful. In fact, it is a testament to the strength of the constitutional republic the founders built, that even with a man like Donald Trump abusing his powers and a media bolstering his lies, ultimately he was forced to step down, and though justice is slow, he is finally seeing justice for his many crimes.
The Supreme Court rulings can’t be contested except by the Supreme Court.
See: Worcester v. Georgia
This is one of the problems with a Supreme Court that is making rulings that the majority of people don't agree with. If the Supreme Court loses its legitimacy and the other branches simply start ignoring it, it will take a lot of work to get any power back.
My point is, however, that one man alone cannot be strong enough to bring it all down. There is enough distribution of power for the system to be robust. By irony, the very political tribalism which is ubiquitously hated and lamented by pundits itself creates a sort of political competition; there is very high incentive to hold the other party or incumbent(s) accountable when they abuse their power or make mistakes, as this benefits themselves politically. Of course, the downside to this system, as we've witnessed in recent years, is that both parties are quick to criticize the other side for their sins, but once in power they commit the very same sins with no self-awareness of the hypocrisy. Although, I wonder how much of that is due to McConnell and the GOP's loose morals, vs. the GOP itself being nigh unrecognizable from what it once was. The party of Reagan, Bush, and Romney is no more; the latter of which I was just reading, described in the press as a "pariah within his own party."
The system they set up has far too much ambiguity and survives only as long as honorable people are in the correct places at the correct times and _just_ barely enough were, this time, to prevent it all from completely crashing down.
> [...] ultimately he was forced to step down, and though justice is slow, he is finally seeing justice for his many crimes.
I mean I'll take it, but he's only being prosecuted for a small fraction of the shit he did, even if we ignore his whole life before the presidency. Our justice system has been openly corrupted by the rich and the powerful.
Imagine how US would have looked like if South had won the previous civil war.
So, the person quoted in the article has at least some grounds for arguing about human rights, although you might consider the grounds fairly weak. I furthermore claim that the only compassionate response is to agree even if the person isn't on the strongest ground in a formal legal sense where someone might actually be able to do something about it.
A genius of the US Constitution is that it states unequivocally that citizens grant rights to their government, not the other way around.
The rights being discussed in the article sounds like rights nominal protected by Russian law. So really the question is 'do rights the government grant you count, if that government ignores them?'. In a properly functioning liberal democracy, the answer is 'yes, because there is a co-equal branch of the government (the judiciary) that will not ignore them'. In a country where all aperatasus of the government agree not to respect those rights, then all you have is paper.
It's back on the table for discussion [1] but it would probably take a serious event to push this in one direction or the other I think. Probably nudging it in the requirement direction is the lack of physically qualified candidates. I have no idea what direction this will ultimately go.
I have proudly served along side women in the US military and witnessed them performing all the duties expected of them not in combat. How random male and female conscripts would be allocated in warfare by the US remains to be seen and I do not know to what extent they have tested this idea. I have sparred with female fighters outside of the military and would be afraid to meet them in battle but these were not random conscripts and in my humble opinion are not very common.
[1] - https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/06/27/requirement-w...
Congress almost did so, to the point where both houses of Congress approved a draft bill that would; however the provision was dropped before a final version was agreed to.
For a country that has not had a draft in half a century, that is a suprising level of controversy.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-928_new_i4ek....
I appreciate that you prefaced this with a disclaimer about your ignorance, but it has a weird tone of American exceptionalism to it, and it’s not even close to true. There are quite a lot of countries with “bills of rights”. There’s even a Wikipedia article that attempts to enumerate them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_rights
> Everyone has the right to life, personal liberty, integrity and security.
> No one shall be sentenced to death, tortured or otherwise treated in a manner violating human dignity.
> Everyone's private life, honour and the sanctity of the home are guaranteed.
> The secrecy of correspondence, telephony and other confidential communications is inviolable.
> Everyone has the freedom of religion and conscience.
> Everyone has the freedom of expression.
> Everyone has the right to arrange meetings and demonstrations without a permit, as well as the right to participate in them.
> Everyone has the freedom of association.
> Those who cannot obtain the means necessary for a life of dignity have the right to receive indispensable subsistence and care.
From my point of view America is exceptional because their rights are often part of political discourse in a way that I don’t see at home or in my limited exposure to other domestic politics.
Think about "liberté, égalité, fraternité".
Every political party in every country invokes civic rights in their discourse because it makes for a great rhetoric.
In more autocratic countries human rights might be a much bigger part of political discourse because there are more violations.
The historical background is that serving in the military is what able-bodied male citizens do in a republic. Conscription is not supposed to be something that the government does but what the citizens do by the virtue of being citizens. If there is no conscription, you don't have a republic in the traditional sense, because warfare is no longer a public matter.
there are rules in russia about how conscription/etc works. medically fit, mentally stable, etc. ever since they started mobilization they just rubber stamp paperwork that says that they are fit without any medical examination
just an example
https://www.sss.gov/
There are international treaties that are incorporated law - e.g. the European Convention on Human Rights. How effective they are varies with national governments (Russia and Turkey are both ECHR, for example). The big variable is whether a country has an independent judiciary that will enforce those rights.
There are definite rights listed in very old laws such as the Magna Carta - and I have read that much of what it granted was already accepted in common law.
Is it unusual they targeted a mosque, or is this just one of hundreds of places press gangs have targeted?
My deepest sympathies to any Russians trying to avoid the war on Ukraine, though.
Here is an analogy that might help those familiar with the US: it is kind of like Yonkers is to NYC, Chicago suburbs are to Chicago the city, or Burbank is to Los Angeles.
Considering even twitter (now X) seems to have absolutely no other information aside from the same copy-pasted few sentences despite it being over 24 hours, I’d take it with a grain of salt for now.
No, it's credible exiled Russian media. Your account however has a history of just blatantly making up pro-Russian claims.
>Considering even twitter (now X)
There are a lot of things you can no longer find on xhitter because serious people are leaving that bit and misinformation filled hellhole.
Nor are they a “exiled Russian media”. They were founded in Latvia.
Re: my account: I rarely post on the topic of politics, and my last comment on Russia/ukraine was over three weeks ago, and was a discussion on electronic warfare.
Stop lying.
Founded by Russian journalists in Latvia after one of the founders were fired from a Russian media outlet for work unpopular with the Russian government, initially staffed by former employees of the same Russian media outlet.
So, “exiled Russian media” is (if somewgat awkwardly phrased, “Russian exile media” would I think be more natural) reasonably accurate.
Which part is made up?