3 ms·

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

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.

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.