On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 02:14:20AM -0500, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > Second - foreigners _do_ have fewer rights in the view of the > Constitution because they are not US citizens. The purpose of the > American Constitution is to guarantee civil rights to American > citizens. The preamble begins "We the People of the United States" > not "We the People of the world." I hope that people in other > countries have full civil rights, but it is not incumbent upon the > American government that it treat them as if they have the same levels > of Constitutional protection that American citizens receive. Foreign > nationals in the United States have Constitutional protections almost > on the level of those given to American citizens. But those outside > the United States do not at all, which is perfectly reasonable, to my > mind.
It is not reasonable to my mind. I understand that the Constitution does not guarantee civil rights to non-Americans. But it should. Ethically, I do not see why being American or not has any bearing on whether a person deserves basic rights of justice and fair treatement. These are the rights that should be applied to all human beings, and in fact, to all sentient creatures. Incidentally, it wasn't that long ago that China detained a foreigner on charges of being involved in spying. What Ashcroft is advocating can result in America abusing rights of justice in the same way that China abused rights of justice. "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.com/ Me: I somehow seem to not be making myself clear at all - that or I'm just completely misunderstanding what you guys are writing. Are you suggesting that the Constitution should guarantee rights to people who don't even live in the United States? The only way it could do that, of course, is by dictating a world empire. This I presume most of us are against. Why on earth would _anyone_ want the American government to treat citizens of other countries as if they were American citizens? I don't want them to vote in American elections, certainly. The job of the American government is to look after Americans - I hope that it acts ethically and with restraint and does its best for other people around the world too, but that is not its primary responsibility. There's no country in the world that even pretends to value its citizens equally with those of the rest of the world. Any politician who believed that has no business in office, in fact, since he has a _responsibility_ to look after the interests of his own constituents and citizens. Let's flip this around. Suppose that a group of American citizens (not government employees, but private citizens) some of them living in the United States, some as "sleepers" in Britain, decided to get revenge on the British for the Boston Massacre and blew up Harrods, killing 3000 people. Suppose that the British government identified the people involved and determined that they were part of a worldwide conspiracy aimed at the destruction of Britain. I would not expect the British government to try the Americans involved in civilian courts _if there was a mechanism in British law to allow them to be tried otherwise_. If the British government then discovered that some of its citizens were involved in the conspiracy and decided to use civilian courts for them when it had the option of military tribunals, I would consider that a welcome sign of restraint on the part of the British government, not an immoral stance devaluing the citizens of other countries. There is, without question, a constitutional mechanism in American law and a wide-ranging series of precedents in international law that allow military tribunals to be used to try illegal combatants. If the American government decides not to use them in trying its own citizens (particularly when it does have the option to do that) that is a sign of restraint and moderation, not immorality. But as for moral relativism . . . First, if foreigners _are_ spying, you are allowed to detain them. Every country in the world has that right. So there's nothing inherently wrong with arresting people who are spying. Indeed it is, again, the responsibility of every government to take steps to prevent espionage. The reason we complained about the Chinese actions is that they were arresting _American citizens_ who were clearly not spies, but were in fact just ethnically Chinese, as a way of exerting pressure on the American and Taiwanese governments. The two cases could not be more different. The American government is dealing with a worldwide conspiracy dedicated to its destruction that has launched multiple attacks against US interests (certainly both World Trade Center bombings, the 1998 embassy bombings, the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, probably the 1993 attacks on US troops in Somalia, possibly the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996 as well) and attempted to launch many more, resulting in the death of thousands of American citizens. No serious person disputes this. Faced with an unprecedented situation the Bush Administration has chosen to maintain the option of using military tribunals to prosecute people it believes responsible. It hasn't even said that it _will_ do this, it's just chosen to maintain the option of doing it. This it, and I, and I think even Nick (correct me if I'm wrong), believe is the best balance between maintaining the secrecy vital for military and intelligence operations while still doing everything possible to assure the accused a fair trial (again, military tribunals are pretty good courts, and are quite capable of releasing the accused, as they frequently did after WW2). The Administration has chosen to limit itself to using tribunals only against people who are not citizens of the United States - again, in my eyes a sign of moderation and deliberation, not malice. Think of the huge difference between this - where American government is going to substantial lengths to preserve the rights even of non-citizens who have successfully murdered thousands of its citizens - and the Chinese situation, where a researcher was grabbed off the street, separated from her child, interned, placed before a kangaroo court - I assume that no one is going to equivocate between the Chinese and American justice systems, even military tribuanls conducted by American officers - and imprisoned on non-existent evidence. Gautam
