HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Is it time to push to cha...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jun 11, 2013, 08:40 PM

Is it time to push to change the Bill of Rights to cover all humans on earth everywhere?

European governments are upset that the U.S. is running a massive spy system on every non-American.

The folk at Gitmo are foreign citizens on foreign territory so they don't enjoy all the rights in the Bill of Rights.

We were upset when a drone took out an American Citizen on the rather expanded notion of where the battlefield is. (Apparently everywhere but the United States.)

I know that changing the Constitution is a tall order.

But since the U.S. like to fly hither and yon and blame everyone else for denying people their human rights, it is time that we changed our Constitution to recognize that human rights are everyone's rights under U.S. law, and whether a person is a citizen born in Washington DC or Mombasa Kenya, we recognize certain inalienable rights specifically those applicable or implied to individuals under the Bill of Rights.

Agree or disagree?
Why?

11 replies, 1034 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Agnosticsherbet (Original post)

Tue Jun 11, 2013, 08:54 PM

1. Yes. Basic human rights, a Bill of Rights and Constutional rights.

 

If we and our "partners" can't get behind that, we're doing it wrong.

How many or our Euro partners, just today, mentioned that Human Rights in the U.S.A. is less then what China has?

Do you really need a hint MoFo'ers? Worse than China. That's U.S. now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCKit (Reply #1)

Tue Jun 11, 2013, 08:57 PM

2. Worse than China is hyperbole...Same as China in many respecs, I would say yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Original post)

Tue Jun 11, 2013, 08:59 PM

3. The US government does not have jurisdiction over other countries.

We are not King of the World.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #3)

Tue Jun 11, 2013, 09:02 PM

5. Don't say that to the Admin or Congress....

 

You'll be up on charges of treason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Original post)

Tue Jun 11, 2013, 09:01 PM

4. Umm! Because the US Constitution has no jurisdiction outside the USA????

But maybe you would want to impose our freedoms on the world? I think W said he was doing that in Iraq. So much for insisting that our Bill of Rights apply everywhere.

We do have the UN, which can be a cantankerous body, working both for and against USA so-called values. Of course, the Republicans think it is the source of the anti-Christ and -- horrors! -- world government who will take away everybody's guns and force is all into concentration camps policed by people in pale blue helmets.

Then, there's the countries already pissed off at us for nearly taking down the world's economy merely for the benefit of our top greedy assholes. (Not that they're doing much better -- thank you very little University of Chicago economics school and Ronald Reagan.)

So, I'd like to hear how we would accomplish this feat that you suggest.

So what could possibly go wrong with that plan?

Maybe we ought to learn by the government of Iceland, or the other Scandinavian countries. Or, Suomi? (Here known as Finland.) Those are the models I would prefer for a world government.

Certainly not that of the USA, in spite of our Bill of Rights. (Which, if you haven't been paying attention, has been under a significant repression over a few decades.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #4)

Tue Jun 11, 2013, 09:09 PM

7. We can recognize that all humans have the same rights under U.S. law as an American Citizens.

Such a change to our constitution would not work within the law systems of other sovereign nations. But the way we treat their citizens when they fall afoul of our laws or our wars would change.

So collecting information on foreign citizens would be as much of a violation of rights as it is supposed to be when collecting it on American citizens. We could not lock them away in Gitmo forever because it isn't on U.S. soil and they aren't U.S. citizens.

My idea isn't aimed at creating a world government complete with black helicopters. It is the recognition that human rights are held by every member of the species and would require us to treat these people as we are supposed to treat our own citizens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #7)

Tue Jun 11, 2013, 09:24 PM

10. Then, what does the USA do when Pakistan executes an atheist for apostasy?

What do we do then?

As per holy scripture, some dude has stones thrown at him until he's dead. Pakistan claims jurisdiction and the community of the event claims it's the holy law.

What then?

I could come up with any number of counter examples. I chose this one to highlight to extent of that you are suggesting.

Plus, I would really rather that the USA be more like Iceland where the bankers actually were prosecuted and whose government rejected austerity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Original post)

Tue Jun 11, 2013, 09:05 PM

6. I'm sorry, but this makes no sense ....

How, exactly, are you going to change the Constitution to guarantee the freedom of religion of the people in Iran? Or Saudi Arabia? What is your wording in the proposed amendment to the US Constitution?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldhippie (Reply #6)

Tue Jun 11, 2013, 09:11 PM

8. As I said in the post above.

The guarantees are for those foreign citizens that run afoul of our own laws and national misadventures, not to force foreign government to toe our line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #8)

Tue Jun 11, 2013, 09:18 PM

9. So, how would you word the amandment?

To protect the right of foreign citizens? For example, who would you change "Congress shall make no laws ..." in the first amendment, or the wording of the 4th amendment?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Original post)

Tue Jun 11, 2013, 09:33 PM

11. On December 10, 1948, the United Nations proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights...

... as a resolution, with a count of 48 votes to none with only 8 abstentions.

My reply is not a direct answer to your question, but it is an interesting avenue to understand and consider.

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.



A good set of questions and answers is available on the United Nations Association in Canada website.

The Universal Declaration was conceived as a statement of objectives to be pursued by Governments, and therefore it is not part of binding international law.


For example:

Q: What are the main principles upheld by the Declaration?

A: The Declaration contains, in addition to its preamble, thirty articles that outline peopleís universal rights. Some of the rights championed by the Declaration are:

the right to life, liberty and security of person

the right to an education

right to participate fully in cultural life

freedom from torture or cruel, inhumane treatment or punishment

freedom of thought, conscience and religion


and

Q: What is the International Bill of Human Rights?

A: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, together with the Optional Protocol and the International Covenant on Human Rights collectively form the International Bill of Rights. It is important to note that the creation of the UDHR was only one piece of the UNCHRís three-tiered mandate. In addition to a declaration of principles, the commission was mandated with drafting two legally-binding covenants on human rights. The International Covenants on Human Rights are treaties whose parties (ie. States) undertake to respect, ensure and take steps for the full achievement of a wide range of rights. The two Covenants are the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Both were adopted by the General Assembly and were opened for signature in December 1966 and both came into effect in 1976. The Covenants recognize and define in more detail most of the rights set out in the Universal Declaration. The Optional Protocol is an adjunct instrument to the Covenant, and was adopted in 1966 and came into effect in 1976.


The full text of the UDHR is available on the U.N. website.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread