Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Yes they are. But not all people live in countries that respect such rights. And unless something dramatic has happened this morning that I missed, there is no world government that can effectively enforce such rights for all world citizens. And as long as large swaths of people in this world live in countrys that don't effectively protect their people's rights, and are bent on destroying such rights for US citizens and other people in the world, then the US can only be responsible for protecting such rights in its own jurisdiction [I]and[I] among its own citizens. In order to protect the rights of US citizens we can't protect the rights of all world citizens as long as other citizens are under the perview of other governments that don't respect such rights.
It would be nice if all governments of the world (and all people of the world) recognized that the citizens under their control have inaliable rights, but until that day arrives, it is absurd for the US government to pretend that they do.
|
It's all in how you read those words "own jurisdiction" and whether you stick and "and" or an "or" between them and citizens. We're talking the government trying people without informing them of the evidence against them. The US can indeed be, and is, responsible for its actions. Should they be held to a standard?
But, don't worry, the S.Ct. holding is not that the Government can't do it under the constitution, but rather that they chose to do it in a way that violates the Geneva Convention and the rules of warfare. They will find a way to alienate the inalienable rights.
Threaded Mode