On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Jim Dixon wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, J.A. Terranson wrote:
Why does the US military have to treat them as though they had US constitutional rights? They are not citizens or physically present in the United States.
In a nutshell, our Constitution *recognizes* universal human rights. It does not *establish* these rights. If we are going to be faithful to this premise, physical location is a non-sequitor.
This is a valid and probably commendable political position. I do not believe, however, that it reflects current practice in the USA or elsewhere.
I say "probably" because it seems likely that adopting this as a practice would have very high costs. How far would you have this go? Is the US government to be obligated to ensure these rights to everyone everywhere? Does this mean liberating slaves in China and Saudi Arabia, for example? Opening up Russian jails? Forcing countries everywhere to grant the vote to women, to educate children?
Hmmm. Does the application of this principle mean that the US government is going to require the British government to recognize the right to keep and bear arms? ;-)
The application of the principal domestically does not inherently oblige us to force the acceptance of our views on others. Rather, it provides a framework where others who share this view can come here. If we are "correct" in our worldview, we will pick up allies. If we are not, we will die. Unfortunately, the US does not even *pretend* to follow it's own ethics, so the whole subject is pure theory on a national level :-( -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org "Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." The Promise of World Peace http://www.us.bahai.org/interactive/pdaFiles/pwp.htm