Are Human Rights granted only when convenient?
Incidentally - why aren't the countries that normally object to breaches of 'Human Rights' on boards against the persecution of people such as Manning, Snowden and Assange?
The Military are accountable to the government ... who are accountable to their electorate. While I agree that some operations need to be covert and secrecy is crucial to the success of such missions ... governments must not afford the same protection to people that have committed crimes (Eg the deaths of innocent people).
Years ago such atrocities would have been easily hidden. Now we have the Internet and information is readily accessible when the Media sit quietly at the call of their governments and ignore the stories that they should be reporting on.
Keep an eye on what's happening with the law makers in your countries. There have been moves to limit the freedom of Internet information over the past.
In the UK the legislators are trying to bring back laws enabling secret trials - which are a dead pool for more potential miscarriages of justice. Beware the shadows in the Halls of Power ... but remember that they're a minority and while Democracy is used as a toy to control the masses ... there is REAL power there if the people decide to make it effective by voting and coming together on issues that matter.
The biggest enemy of democracy is the division being created by various groups throughout human societies. Such groups are relatively small in numbers and membership but their activities are given undue coverage in terms of the way the press sensationalise the write-ups of their activities. This in turn generates fear. If people could stop themselves being dragged into the fear and hatred that such groups create, we'd end up with a wiser, more balanced society that would be able to see past the smoke screens of this sort of political activity ... allowing us to concentrate on building a better society by working together and, either, embracing or at least tolerating our differences. The effect would be a government that serves its populace rather than a government that's seeking to continually exploit its people for its own material gain. To that end, would a government of proportional representation be better than the current one party system (current coalition aside)?
In my experience, it takes longer to come up with workable practises and policies that all parties involved in the process are happy with ... but at least they'll all have had a say in any changes and can work together rather being allowed to continually blame unfavourable outcomes and policies on the previous political administration.
On the issue of our differences, does it really matter that your neighbour prays to a different deity? Does it matter if your neighbours are gay? Does it matter that you have neighbours of different ethnicities? Surely all that matters is that we don't force our beliefs/life styles upon each other in any way and that we can allow each other to live our lives in peace and be tolerant of each other?
Please start taking an interest in shaping the environment that you live in - if you're young. The future is yours and you're all stake holders in the future of a collective human civilisation.
Make your human society better than it is now ... and never stop striving to make further improvements in the future.
Villayat 'Wolf' Sunkmanitu