On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 11:58:38AM -0500, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > Me: I somehow seem to not be making myself clear at all - that or I'm > just completely misunderstanding what you guys are writing.
It appears you are completely misunderstanding. > Are you suggesting that the Constitution should guarantee rights to > people who don't even live in the United States? Yes. > The only way it could do that, of course, is by dictating a world > empire. No. For the sake of discussion, "rights" can be divided into 2 categories: (1) that a person has a right NOT to be forcibly treated in an inhumane way, and (2) that a person has a right to have or do something. I think that ethics and decency demand that every human being, and every sentient creature, has (1) rights. For example, the right to not be arrested without just cause, the right not to be jailed beyond the minimum time necessary to determine guilt, the right not to be unilaterally tried by a possibly biased judge, the right not to be sentenced without chance for appeal, the right not to be denied communication with peers and press, etc. In other words, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. > 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. So we should simply use our military force to take over all the countries in the world, steal their goods, enslave their children? All of the goods and slaves would, of course, be divided equally among all the American citizens. The politicians are looking after the interest of their constituents, after all. > 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. Tell that to innocent people who have been denied basic human rights of justice and fair treatment in both cases. > 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 Huh? Are the accused guilty until proven innocent? I forgot to list in the examples of #1 rights, the right not to be declared guilty without a fair trial. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.com/
