14 ms·

This is such a hilariously weird take on how rights work. I don't want to tar all Americans with the same brush, but I think only someone from the US could poss

This is such a hilariously weird take on how rights work. I don't want to tar all Americans with the same brush, but I think only someone from the US could possibly have come up with this

andrewxdiamond 5y ago
Ideologically, this is exactly how the US Bill of Rights works. The rights listed in the Bill of Rights are unalienable, natural, and apply regardless of your citizenship status. Of course this is weird from another country’s perspective, but it is the mentality that many Americans take because to us, it is right.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > The rights listed in the Bill of Rights are unalienable, natural, and apply regardless of your citizenship status. It's quite clear this isn't the actual policy of the US, though, given the existence of Guantanamo Bay.
  - andrewxdiamond 5y ago
    I agree, I think it’s increasing important to separate the “people of the US” from the “US Government.” The sentiment of the average citizen is much more inline with the ideals of the nation than the Nation itself is
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    The only requirement of an abstract definition is that it be comprehensible and internally consistent. It is clearly not consistent to criticize Americans for violating inalienable human rights while claiming that inalienable human rights are a concept that does not exist for non-Americans.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  The International Criminal Court seems like strong evidence that inalienable rights are not "weird from another country's perspective". Particularly since they have come into conflict with the US over trying to prosecute human rights violations in the mideast.
- oohaargh 5y ago
  It really isn't exactly how it works though - correct me where I'm going wrong here, because I've just read all these responses and feel I must be going insane. The ideology is that human beings ought to have some intrinsic rights. The Bill of Rights is an attempt to codify those rights in the context of how _the US government_ can interact with people (regardless of their citizenship). The idea that a UK citizen has these rights by default because they're in the US Bill of Rights, and can then have these rights deprived of them _by their own government_ is the part of this that is hilariously American. Of course, if it was the US government taking the action then that would be a different story altogether, but the US isn't involved at any point
  - andrewxdiamond 5y ago
    It works that way to say that these rights are _above_ the US government. The government isn’t “granting” them, and it can’t take them away. The bill of rights is descriptive, not prescriptive. The side effect here is that technically, according to US lore, the situation you describe with the UK is correct. And it’s kindof how US citizens think. You have the right to protest your government. You have the right to say whatever you want. You have the right to defend yourself. You may not agree, but that’s what US lore says, and it feeds a lot of our international behavior.
aspenmayer 5y ago
If the US government can selectively apply Constitutional protections to citizens and noncitizens worldwide, others should be able to claim those same rights if in a jurisdiction arguably subject to US control, presence, or influence. Not sure whether a UK citizen in the UK would qualify in that case, but I don’t find the idea absurd on its face.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  You're saying that inalienable rights might exist, depending on US policy? Or, more specifically, I attempt to paraphrase: If the US doesn't respect inalienable rights, then non-citizens should have them? I don't see any connection, and you seem to also be saying you believe in inalienable rights which are alienable.
  - aspenmayer 5y ago
    > You're saying that inalienable rights might exist, depending on US policy? Yes, in practice if not in principle or statute. American citizens and their citizen children have been murdered by drones without a jury trial or public hearing, or much of any due process which may be examined by the public openly. We take the US at their word when we say inalienable rights exist, but their behavior suggests that the US doesn’t respect inalienable rights or view them as an impediment to implementing unconstitutional US policy or performing acts contravening said inalienable rights. > If the US doesn't respect inalienable rights, then non-citizens should have them? Extradition to US has been blocked on a case-by-case basis by foreign courts due to observable effects of American courts not even meeting their own regulatory bar of speedy, fair, public trials, trials where you may confront your accuser in open court, with a jury of your peers. Parallel construction makes a mockery of the investigatory chain of evidence. Fruit of the poison tree doctrine is DOA. Secret grand juries are lied to in order to force unjustifiable, indefensible charges. Secret evidence and secret trials. Are secret convictions and secret imprisonment next? Indefinite detention without charge already gets US government 90% of the way there. > I don't see any connection, and you seem to also be saying you believe in inalienable rights which are alienable. I believe in inalienable rights, in that the concept is an unequivocal social good, but rights are not only what are claimed, but that which can be exercised freely and without undue restraint; I also believe that the government doesn’t act as if it has a good faith belief in ensuring that inalienable rights exist to begin with, nor does the US seem intent on defending them in all cases. In practice, inalienable rights don’t exist. This should change in my view.
clarkmoody 5y ago
Well the idea originates with John Locke and other European Enlightenment thinkers... Locke himself was English, so it's a real shame to see the state of human rights in the UK in 2021.
- oohaargh 5y ago
  The English have done alright for philosophers, but I'm not sure human rights have ever been a particularly strong suit in the UK. Sadly it's not looking like improving any time soon
perl4ever 5y ago
Remember "the French don't have a word for entrepreneur"? Snopes apparently debunked it, however, I was always inclined to believe it happened and was deliberate irony. I hope your comment is in the same vein.
- oohaargh 5y ago
  You really think of human rights as an exclusively American idea? I'm not surprised you can't see what my comment is getting at
1123581321 5y ago
I’m trying but I don’t understand your comment. Are you saying inalienable rights are an American idea? The US imported that idea. Or are you saying that it’s bad that they have to be spelled out in the Constitution? Many of the original founders agreed with this and were concerned that the Bill of Rights would create a negative space consisting of every unlisted right, in which the government could reduce rights with impunity. (It turns out that essentially happened due to the unfortunate wording of the inter-state commerce clause.) If you mean it’s weird that the Constitution is federal, yes, that’s due to the unusual circumstances surrounding the formation of the United States. Each state also has its own constitution where variations of these rights, and others, is repeated.

This is such a hilariously weird take on how rights work. I don't want to tar all Americans with the same brush, but I think only someone from the US could possibly have come up with this

andrewxdiamond 5y ago

Ideologically, this is exactly how the US Bill of Rights works. The rights listed in the Bill of Rights are unalienable, natural, and apply regardless of your citizenship status. Of course this is weird from another country’s perspective, but it is the mentality that many Americans take because to us, it is right.

ceejayoz 5y ago
> The rights listed in the Bill of Rights are unalienable, natural, and apply regardless of your citizenship status. It's quite clear this isn't the actual policy of the US, though, given the existence of Guantanamo Bay.
- andrewxdiamond 5y ago
  I agree, I think it’s increasing important to separate the “people of the US” from the “US Government.” The sentiment of the average citizen is much more inline with the ideals of the nation than the Nation itself is
- perl4ever 5y ago
  The only requirement of an abstract definition is that it be comprehensible and internally consistent. It is clearly not consistent to criticize Americans for violating inalienable human rights while claiming that inalienable human rights are a concept that does not exist for non-Americans.
perl4ever 5y ago
The International Criminal Court seems like strong evidence that inalienable rights are not "weird from another country's perspective". Particularly since they have come into conflict with the US over trying to prosecute human rights violations in the mideast.
oohaargh 5y ago
It really isn't exactly how it works though - correct me where I'm going wrong here, because I've just read all these responses and feel I must be going insane. The ideology is that human beings ought to have some intrinsic rights. The Bill of Rights is an attempt to codify those rights in the context of how _the US government_ can interact with people (regardless of their citizenship). The idea that a UK citizen has these rights by default because they're in the US Bill of Rights, and can then have these rights deprived of them _by their own government_ is the part of this that is hilariously American. Of course, if it was the US government taking the action then that would be a different story altogether, but the US isn't involved at any point
- andrewxdiamond 5y ago
  It works that way to say that these rights are _above_ the US government. The government isn’t “granting” them, and it can’t take them away. The bill of rights is descriptive, not prescriptive. The side effect here is that technically, according to US lore, the situation you describe with the UK is correct. And it’s kindof how US citizens think. You have the right to protest your government. You have the right to say whatever you want. You have the right to defend yourself. You may not agree, but that’s what US lore says, and it feeds a lot of our international behavior.

aspenmayer 5y ago

If the US government can selectively apply Constitutional protections to citizens and noncitizens worldwide, others should be able to claim those same rights if in a jurisdiction arguably subject to US control, presence, or influence. Not sure whether a UK citizen in the UK would qualify in that case, but I don’t find the idea absurd on its face.

perl4ever 5y ago
You're saying that inalienable rights might exist, depending on US policy? Or, more specifically, I attempt to paraphrase: If the US doesn't respect inalienable rights, then non-citizens should have them? I don't see any connection, and you seem to also be saying you believe in inalienable rights which are alienable.
- aspenmayer 5y ago
  > You're saying that inalienable rights might exist, depending on US policy? Yes, in practice if not in principle or statute. American citizens and their citizen children have been murdered by drones without a jury trial or public hearing, or much of any due process which may be examined by the public openly. We take the US at their word when we say inalienable rights exist, but their behavior suggests that the US doesn’t respect inalienable rights or view them as an impediment to implementing unconstitutional US policy or performing acts contravening said inalienable rights. > If the US doesn't respect inalienable rights, then non-citizens should have them? Extradition to US has been blocked on a case-by-case basis by foreign courts due to observable effects of American courts not even meeting their own regulatory bar of speedy, fair, public trials, trials where you may confront your accuser in open court, with a jury of your peers. Parallel construction makes a mockery of the investigatory chain of evidence. Fruit of the poison tree doctrine is DOA. Secret grand juries are lied to in order to force unjustifiable, indefensible charges. Secret evidence and secret trials. Are secret convictions and secret imprisonment next? Indefinite detention without charge already gets US government 90% of the way there. > I don't see any connection, and you seem to also be saying you believe in inalienable rights which are alienable. I believe in inalienable rights, in that the concept is an unequivocal social good, but rights are not only what are claimed, but that which can be exercised freely and without undue restraint; I also believe that the government doesn’t act as if it has a good faith belief in ensuring that inalienable rights exist to begin with, nor does the US seem intent on defending them in all cases. In practice, inalienable rights don’t exist. This should change in my view.

clarkmoody 5y ago

Well the idea originates with John Locke and other European Enlightenment thinkers... Locke himself was English, so it's a real shame to see the state of human rights in the UK in 2021.

oohaargh 5y ago
The English have done alright for philosophers, but I'm not sure human rights have ever been a particularly strong suit in the UK. Sadly it's not looking like improving any time soon

perl4ever 5y ago

Remember "the French don't have a word for entrepreneur"? Snopes apparently debunked it, however, I was always inclined to believe it happened and was deliberate irony. I hope your comment is in the same vein.

oohaargh 5y ago
You really think of human rights as an exclusively American idea? I'm not surprised you can't see what my comment is getting at

1123581321 5y ago

I’m trying but I don’t understand your comment. Are you saying inalienable rights are an American idea? The US imported that idea. Or are you saying that it’s bad that they have to be spelled out in the Constitution? Many of the original founders agreed with this and were concerned that the Bill of Rights would create a negative space consisting of every unlisted right, in which the government could reduce rights with impunity. (It turns out that essentially happened due to the unfortunate wording of the inter-state commerce clause.) If you mean it’s weird that the Constitution is federal, yes, that’s due to the unusual circumstances surrounding the formation of the United States. Each state also has its own constitution where variations of these rights, and others, is repeated.