5 ms·

>Non-Americans don't have the same rights as Americans. It is precisely this violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that is causing so much cal

by aa-jv 3y ago

>Non-Americans don't have the same rights as Americans. It is precisely this violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that is causing so much calamity in the world today, alas. Americans should really, really not accept this state of affairs - either American lives are human lives, and are thus as valuable as any other human life, or they aren't - and therefore international law need not apply to Americans in other aspects of life, either. The efforts to which an American citizen will proclaim their exceptionalism over the rest of the world and duplicity in applying that exceptionalism is a major cause of the diminished trust that the world feels for the USA, today.

tekknik 3y ago
[flagged]
rs999gti 3y ago
> the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Not actual law or legally binding.
- i2cmaster 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- aa-jv 3y ago
  It SHOULD be law and legally binding, though, as it provides greater protection for human rights than the US Constitution does, by far.
robertlagrant 3y ago
> It is precisely this violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Pretty much all countries distinguish citizens from non-citizens. This isn't an American thing. And you're committing a category error, namely that rights Americans have aren't a superset of any internationally agreed rights. They are.
- pjc50 3y ago
  The US refused to ratify the Convention on Rights of The Child, so the rights of Americans are not a superset of internationally agreed rights.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    But is this is not missing the point? Just as with any country, if the US didn't agree them, then they aren't agreed. Thus they aren't an example of the US differentiating between its citizens and its non-citizens on its agreed human rights.
- tastyfreeze 3y ago
  In most countries people are subjects of the government. In the US the people are sovereign. The government doesn't tell us what our rights are.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    Sure, no. The cop with a gun pointed at you shouts your rights at you; rights which the government wrote down. In all seriousness though, I've no idea what this means in any practical sense. I don't know what being a subject of a government is, not how it compares to being a sovereign.
- aa-jv 3y ago
  Bah, this is just another example of how Americans' can be convinced to buy their own doom by packaging it as exceptionalism instead. Human rights supersede citizenship, which is as it should be - especially for those human beings who want to exercise their rights while not being citizens of any state, whether by choice or by war, etc. Non-citizens are humans too, and therefore have the same rights citizens do.
brvsft 3y ago
I agree with the counter-conclusion you propose, which is that these international laws need not apply to Americans either. (Although I agree with the notion, in a reply, that they aren't 'real' or binding law anyway.) It's still the case that spy agencies will have more of a difficult time in court and in public perception dealing with the ramifications of spying on citizens. Nonetheless, I don't think this means very much, and if the Federal government would like to, they could take this 'right' away, lie about not violating it, or violate it and ignore the fact that it's happening. And this isn't about American citizens proclaiming exceptionalism. I suggested no such exceptionalism, and I highly doubt there are many citizens who agree with this any more. I would guess that somewhere near a majority of Americans prefer that we don't waste money spying on anyone. You can put this on the citizens if you like, but I view it similarly to hearing some Americans complain about "the Chinese" rather than "the Chinese government." It doesn't reflect what I believe reality is, that most normal people are not in support of these policies, and normal citizens from 'foreign adversary' nations are not our enemies, and we should not talk about them that way. (Edit: A caveat on this, the US is a democracy so I can see it being argued that the citizens are complicit in their government's behavior. Briefly stated, I disagree, but that's a really long argument and tangent I don't want to go down this morning.) Here's a poll touching the subject from 2021 (no idea about the veracity, just a result I found Googling "poll americans who support spying"): > In particular, 46% of Americans say they oppose the U.S. government responding to threats against the nation by reading emails sent between people outside of the U.S. without a warrant, as permitted under law for purposes of foreign intelligence collection. That’s compared to just 27% who are in favor. In an AP-NORC poll conducted one decade ago, more favored than opposed the practice, 47% to 30%. https://apnews.com/article/technology-afghanistan-race-and-ethnicity-racial-injustice-government-surveillance-d365f3a818bb9d096e8e3b5713f9f856 https://apnews.com/article/technology-afghanistan-race-and-e...

by aa-jv 3y ago

tekknik 3y ago

[flagged]

rs999gti 3y ago

> the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Not actual law or legally binding.

i2cmaster 3y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
aa-jv 3y ago
It SHOULD be law and legally binding, though, as it provides greater protection for human rights than the US Constitution does, by far.

robertlagrant 3y ago

> It is precisely this violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Pretty much all countries distinguish citizens from non-citizens. This isn't an American thing. And you're committing a category error, namely that rights Americans have aren't a superset of any internationally agreed rights. They are.

pjc50 3y ago
The US refused to ratify the Convention on Rights of The Child, so the rights of Americans are not a superset of internationally agreed rights.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  But is this is not missing the point? Just as with any country, if the US didn't agree them, then they aren't agreed. Thus they aren't an example of the US differentiating between its citizens and its non-citizens on its agreed human rights.
tastyfreeze 3y ago
In most countries people are subjects of the government. In the US the people are sovereign. The government doesn't tell us what our rights are.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  Sure, no. The cop with a gun pointed at you shouts your rights at you; rights which the government wrote down. In all seriousness though, I've no idea what this means in any practical sense. I don't know what being a subject of a government is, not how it compares to being a sovereign.
aa-jv 3y ago
Bah, this is just another example of how Americans' can be convinced to buy their own doom by packaging it as exceptionalism instead. Human rights supersede citizenship, which is as it should be - especially for those human beings who want to exercise their rights while not being citizens of any state, whether by choice or by war, etc. Non-citizens are humans too, and therefore have the same rights citizens do.

brvsft 3y ago

I agree with the counter-conclusion you propose, which is that these international laws need not apply to Americans either. (Although I agree with the notion, in a reply, that they aren't 'real' or binding law anyway.) It's still the case that spy agencies will have more of a difficult time in court and in public perception dealing with the ramifications of spying on citizens. Nonetheless, I don't think this means very much, and if the Federal government would like to, they could take this 'right' away, lie about not violating it, or violate it and ignore the fact that it's happening. And this isn't about American citizens proclaiming exceptionalism. I suggested no such exceptionalism, and I highly doubt there are many citizens who agree with this any more. I would guess that somewhere near a majority of Americans prefer that we don't waste money spying on anyone. You can put this on the citizens if you like, but I view it similarly to hearing some Americans complain about "the Chinese" rather than "the Chinese government." It doesn't reflect what I believe reality is, that most normal people are not in support of these policies, and normal citizens from 'foreign adversary' nations are not our enemies, and we should not talk about them that way. (Edit: A caveat on this, the US is a democracy so I can see it being argued that the citizens are complicit in their government's behavior. Briefly stated, I disagree, but that's a really long argument and tangent I don't want to go down this morning.) Here's a poll touching the subject from 2021 (no idea about the veracity, just a result I found Googling "poll americans who support spying"): > In particular, 46% of Americans say they oppose the U.S. government responding to threats against the nation by reading emails sent between people outside of the U.S. without a warrant, as permitted under law for purposes of foreign intelligence collection. That’s compared to just 27% who are in favor. In an AP-NORC poll conducted one decade ago, more favored than opposed the practice, 47% to 30%. https://apnews.com/article/technology-afghanistan-race-and-ethnicity-racial-injustice-government-surveillance-d365f3a818bb9d096e8e3b5713f9f856 https://apnews.com/article/technology-afghanistan-race-and-e...