That's one way to look at it.
"f you are of the philisohical bent that rights exist as some basic human quality outside or above law, that's fine."
With you so far.
""However", from any practical standpoint, rights are only meaningful if they are recognized and respected by the community around you and that recognition and respect are expressed in law."
We're diverging here.
One view is that government supports your rights.
The other view is that government can RESTRICT your expression of your inherent rights.
Usually through the application of violence.
Need an example?
Wanna buy some niggers? Cheap.
"Consider the rights of officers as POWs not to be forced to do manual labor; that right only exists because of international treaty."
So we move from rights inherent in the individuals to rights inherent in the ranks of a specific occupation.
"It doesn't matter what rights you claim, if they are not recognized and respected by those with the power to ignore them, then they are meaningless"
I guess that would depend upon what you believe "meaningless" means.
Lots of revolutions happened when people wanted "meaningless" rights.
Lots of people have died to gain such "meaningless" rights.
Whether something has meaning or not is dependant upon a signature of the current authority?
