Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Right. So if we are in a war every prisoner taken should get the full rights of US citizens?
Or are you saying that the US government should enforce human rights every where in the world. So if Sudan infringes on its citizens rights we should immediately invade to make sure they respect such rights. I really don't think that is practical.
The first step in bringing rights to all human beings is to make sure that they live under governments that afford such rights. Until then making the United States government give all human beings on the planet these rights unilaterally would make it more difficult for the United States to influence the creation of more states that respect these rights.
Once all countries of the world respect these rights the US can change, but as long as we are fighting countries that don't respect such rights, forcing the US government to extend our constitutional protections to all human beings (but only limiting the US government not other governments) would only help totalitarian regimes in further abuse of their citizen’s rights.
If one would really like to see more human beings have rights they would support the US government’s endeavors to create government that respect such rights. As in the Iraqi invasion. The wrong way to go about extending human rights around the world is to force the United States to afford the protections under its constitution to every human being in the world (but the protections applied by the US government would only be against US government action and not against other government’s actions).
Such a move would gain a few inches and give up miles in the struggle for international human rights.
|
You were asserting that the US need not respect basic human rights of foreign persons unless a treaty required it of us. That sounds like waffling to me. It doesn't matter to me whether foreign states respect the human rights of their citizens and I was not saying we should force every state to enforce human rights. All I was saying is that it is a bit inconsistent for you to assert simultaneously that human rights are based on a universal moral code but that the US need not respect the human rights of people if their own government doesn't.
You don't find those two positions at odds?
