Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
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?
|
Well if there is no univeral moral code, why do we care about how we treat prisoners at all.
So if you are worried about how we treat prisoners you believe that there is certain morality that should be applied to all human beings.
But if you think that, what morality do we apply to foreigners and what morality do we not apply?
You stated: "Furthermore, I'm not saying that all hostile combatants are entitled to the full range of protections of the Constitution."
So clearly you think some of our morality applied to them but not all.
I believe that all human beings should be afforded certain rights by their governments. That is the world we want to achieve. That is the best way to make the Universal Moral Code a reality. Many governments now respect human rights and we want to extend that. But when trying to extend those human rights, placing restriction on the United States in an arena where in that same arena the enemy doesn't have those restrictions doesn't help the cause for universal human rights.
From a practical point of view, for example, giving German prisoners of war full access to our constitutional protections (which are part of the UMC) would have made it more difficult and may have stopped our effort in bringing the priviledge of living under a government that provides the UMC to millions of people.
