Article advocates for recognition of human dignity and rights of Afghan military personnel in US. Framing emphasizes vulnerability and legal jeopardy. Coverage of 'long-hidden dimension of America's war' promotes accountability discourse aligned with UDHR preamble dignity principles.

Coverage centers on equal treatment under law for foreign military allies. Headline emphasizes fear and jeopardy—signals unequal protection. Editorial focus on dignity undermined by immigration status vulnerability.

Story examines discrimination based on national origin and military status. Title explicitly references fear—documents lived non-discrimination failure. Editorial advocacy for equal protection implicit.

Focus on life and security of Afghan military personnel now in US. Deportation threat to individuals who served US interests documents right-to-life vulnerability. Coverage but limited explicit advocacy.

Liberty and freedom framing implicit in deportation jeopardy narrative. Editorial focus on imprisonment risk (indirectly) via immigration detention implications.

Shooting incident and subsequent immigration jeopardy explicitly frames torture/cruel treatment risk. Coverage of 'long-hidden dimension' brings visibility to systemic vulnerability. Strong editorial signal against arbitrary detention.

Legal personhood threatened by deportation status. Coverage recognizes subjects' status as rights-bearing individuals despite immigration limbo.

Equal protection under law—core of narrative. Shooting incident exposed unequal legal status. Editorial framing advocates for equivalent legal standing regardless of national origin.

Remedy and justice—narrative centers on deportation threat as punitive rather than restorative. Coverage documents absence of effective remedy. Limited direct engagement with justice mechanisms.

Arbitrary detention/arrest is central theme. Shooting brought immigration status into jeopardy—arbitrary process flagged. Editorial advocacy against arbitrary detention implicit in framing vulnerability.

Fair and public hearing—narrative centers on hidden/classified dimension of war. Implicit critique of lack of public scrutiny. Limited direct engagement with fair trial mechanisms.

Presumption of innocence—immigration jeopardy framed as consequence of incident (shooting) rather than criminal conviction. Narrative suggests presumption violated.

Privacy—extensive tracking infrastructure (Datadog, Sentry, Facebook pixel, Twitter tracking) observable. Metered paywall requires user identification. Domain-level privacy constraints significant. Negative modifier reflects structural privacy invasion.

Freedom of movement—deportation threat central to narrative. Coverage advocates against restrictions on movement based on national origin or employment status.

Asylum and refuge—article explicitly about Afghan military personnel's precarious legal status in US. Narrative frames individuals as vulnerable to persecution if deported. Strong editorial advocacy for protection.

Nationality—central theme but limited constructive framing of nationality rights. Coverage focuses on jeopardy rather than affirmative nationality protections.

Marriage and family—not directly addressed in article focus or observable content. Minimal engagement.

Property rights—not primary focus. Implied economic vulnerability via immigration status precarity. Limited direct engagement.

Freedom of conscience/religion—not explicit focus. Afghan military personnel's belief/identity implicitly protected through advocacy for legal standing. Minimal engagement.

Freedom of expression and information—article itself exemplifies this right. Investigative journalism brings 'long-hidden dimension' to public attention. Editorial standards referenced; journalism model advances right to information. Strong positive signal.

Assembly and association—implicit in narrative about Zero Units as group. Coverage recognizes collective identity of Afghan military personnel. Limited direct engagement with associational rights.

Democratic participation—Afghan military personnel's political voice/participation not directly addressed. Subject to US immigration/security decisions without apparent voice. Limited engagement.

Social security and welfare—deportation jeopardy implies denial of socioeconomic protections. Coverage documents vulnerability but limited affirmative framing of social rights.

Work and employment—Afghan military personnel's service to US military central to narrative. Implicit claim that work/service entitles them to legal protections. Editorial advocacy for employment-based rights recognition.

Rest and leisure—not primary focus. Implied precarity prevents rest/security. Limited engagement.

Standard of living—article documents vulnerability to deportation affecting health/security. Metered paywall limits universal access to information about rights. Mixed signal: editorial advocacy offset by structural access limitation.

Education—not directly addressed. Afghan personnel's background/literacy implicit but not primary focus.

Cultural and scientific community—Afghan military personnel as participants in international security enterprise. Coverage implies right to participate in shared international responsibilities and protections. Moderate engagement.

Social and international order—article documents failure of international order to protect Afghan military personnel who served US interests. Implicit advocacy for stronger international protections and accountability. Strong editorial signal.

Duties—story frames Afghan personnel's duties to US military. Implicit claim that duties entail corresponding rights protections. Limited explicit engagement with duty framework.

Interpretation clause—article examines gap between stated US commitments (military alliance) and actual protection of allied personnel. Implicit critique of narrow interpretation of rights. Moderate editorial advocacy.