Comment by sathackr | Hacker News Reader

Comment by sathackr | Hacker News Reader

What I don't understand is...

In the Constitution of the United States are these words "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

Morally, it seems that the US, as a people, claim the rights granted by the Constitution are rights due to all men.

Why then, do we selectively apply these rights to only US citizens? Are the citizens of other countries of a lesser status that they do not deserve due process? Is that why it's okay to summarily judge and execute someone in another country when we suspect them of terrorism? Why can we legally do something(execute without due process, invade privacy, etc...) to a person in another country, that is illegal for their own country to do to them?

Legally, of course, the Constitution can only be applied to those under its legal protection.

But why is the rest of the world treated like second-class human beings by the US Government?

The US Government should be bound by the constraints of the Constitution when dealing with any human being, not just a US Citizen.

In fact, those words are not in our constitution but in the Declaration of Independence, which is not a legally binding document.

The Bill of Rights, which is law, doesn't talk about "all men" (neither does the Constitution) but says things like "Congress shall make no law..." or "No warrant shall issue...", and says nothing about " all men".

In the case of terrorism executions specifically the justification given is that they are an act of war.

Not legally binding! I think Great Britain thought it was binding - a war was fought over it. Its a founding document of our country, and lays out all the moral principles our Constitution is based upon. It illuminates and explains what those fine words in the Constitution are meant to mean. As such it has been referred to in legal proceedings for centuries.

The war was well under way prior to the Declaration being drafted and signed. 1775.

I understand "war" has a different set of rules, but, historically, those rules have applied to specific circumstances of engagement. Targets were well known and understood.

In a "war" where every person on the planet is a potential enemy, these rules should not be applied, otherwise all someone has to say is "terrorist!" and poof, there go your rights...wait, that's exactly what's happening!

Capturing and trying a person who is actively shooting at you is not practical.

But the style of executions that the US and allies are engaging in has much more in common with law enforcement than "war" -- they receive a "tip" or as a product of their investigations, come across "information" that person X is engaging in terrorism activities. Person X is not permitted to present evidence to the contrary. They are not permitted to present a rebuttal to the claims. There is not even a check or balance on the assertions to Person X's activities. An assessment is made, strike ordered, and Person X, and anyone within a 100ft radius of them, are summarily judged and executed.

The laws proposed are not limited to only "terrorists" -- and there is a long history of the US failing to apply any sort of constitutional protections to any second-class human being. How someone can claim that the protections of the Constitution(or the ideas presented in the Declaration of Independence) are morally self-evident, but yet, somehow only apply to a US Citizen, presents two assertions that are in conflict.

That has never been the case. The Constitution only counts slaves as having 3/5 of the value as a non-slave for purposes of electoral representation. Not to mention the whole idea of slavery goes against the ideals of freedom. Even after slavery ended the right to vote was routinely denied to former slaves and their descendants, along with other rights such as due process.

Yep...rights to women as well.

So historically "all men" and the "rights endowed by their creator" has always been loosely interpreted to fit the ideals and requirements of the leaders at that time.

Which is morally wrong.

3/5 compromise was intended to weaken the institution of slavery. The south would have been happy to count slaves as 2x human.

The motivation behind the "three-fifths" compromise is frequently misunderstood. Counting slaves as something "less than a full person" was actually a win for the abolitionists. Anti-slavery delegates were pushing for slaves to not be counted at all, while politicians from slaveholding states wanted them to count as a full citizen — thus amplifying the voting power of white southerners.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com