So the other day I was reading CNN online, and I stumbled upon this article addressing Julian Assange. http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/02/07/wikileaks.assange.hearing/index.html
In this article the Swedish take the stance that they would not, if given the chance extradite Assange to America as they do not support Human rights violations. This really threw me off, seeing as I think I can speak for most Americans in saying that we generally think of our country as the sort that stands up for Human rights, not the sort that violates them, at least not with enough regularity to warrant such a harsh stance. After thinking about this though, I have come to realize that this is not the case. Assange's lawyers brought up a good point in saying that they were afraid for his safety if he were given over to America.
It seems that when we are talking about 'un-warranted' human rights violations, Americans are on board with saying "NO thats not right... EVER!" but I feel like then after we take this stance, we mumble under our breath "unless you really piss me off... then all bets are off." This is not a stance that is defendable in my opinion, yet I think that most people agree on some base primitive level that there are people out in the world who they would like to see have their human rights violated. Thus, I really don't know if anyone is in a position to judge what constitutes a human rights violation ABSOLUTELY, rather their may be some subjectivity involved.