I've always thought of no-fly lists as completely out of place in a democracy. Either you have enough evidence to charge them with something or you have no business restricting them from doing anything.
No citizen should be victim of unknown charges and/or evidence that impacts their free movement through society.
Why should I need to be a citizen to not have my human rights violated? If it is in the UN Declaration of Human Rights[1] then chances are your country signed it, agreed that would be the minimum standard, that these rights were inalienable and most importantly, that they applied to everyone.
You have to admit it seems a bit silly (at least from my side of the pond) that when it comes to human rights the US seems to ignore the UNDoHR and when it comes to it's international drug policy it enforces the UN Single Drug Convention all over the world with aggression to the point that no country in the world besides Peru can even make cannabis legal in their own nation state without violating international law (which WILL be enforced).
That being said, I specifically did not say 'US citizen' for a reason. I was being inclusive about a general human right as a citizen anywhere to freely move through a society anywhere. It was a conscious choice on my part, and was meant to be more along the lines of the UNDoHR. So, I meant human citizen, as there are very few stateless persons (yes, there are some, but I'm not really bothering to get into that issue).
It's not that Americans don't care about anyone else on the planet (I doubt they care less than people in Western European countries). It's that Americans aren't willing to bind their sovereign freedom of action. The idea of "human citizen[ship]" is anathama to American thought, because citizenship implies reciprocal rights and obligations, and Americans viscerally hate the idea of being obligated or beholden to anyone else. Hell, a lot of Americans think that the arrow should be pointed in the opposite direction: more state sovereignty (i.e. people within states should be less obligated to rules made by the federal government).
Recognition of and respect for human rights need not be bound to sovereign freedom of action, as you put it. Freedom of action does not have to imply freedom to coerce.
And for myself, I don't like to argue in terms of any sort of thing, "natural rights" or "God's law" or whatever, that a doctor couldn't find if he cut me open and poked around. To me, the ability to act is the only thing that exists, and "rights" are just people in a community agreeing to use collective force to enforce whatever they decide to call "rights." The idea that the community as a whole can be bound to limit its ability to act with respect to people outside that compact is to me not a sensible thing.
And I think that while most Americans wouldn't phrase it precisely in that way, their thinking is along similar lines. We're a country that strenuously reserves the right to do whatever the hell we want, bound only by our own collective conscience. We want to do right by people, but we get to be the final arbiters of what's right and what is justified.
The folks who architected this nation most certainly did, and since they're the ones who devised the sovereignty of the states and embodied the individualism and self-reliance and runs undercurrent to your claim that Americans "hate the idea of being obligated or beholden to anyone else" I think it's perfectly fair to characterize the debate in those terms. And they did in fact see these as universal rights: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."
Anyways, specifically I take issue with your claim that "the idea of "human citizen[ship]" is anathama to American thought, because citizenship implies reciprocal rights and obligations." Obligations, yes, but it does not follow that the extension of our recognized rights to all people is in any way contradictory to our ideals, your personal views on collective rights notwithstanding.
> but it does not follow that the extension of our recognized rights to all people is in any way contradictory to our ideals
No matter what theory of the nature of rights you subscribe to, as a practical matter "rights" are limits on collective action. To say that, say, a non-American in Yemen has "rights" is to say that there are things that the American people, acting through Congress, cannot do. That is what is inconsistent with Americans' perceptions of the world. Not because we think people in Yemen are a lesser sort of human, but because Americans don't accept the idea that there is some higher power that can decide what America can and cannot do.
Don't believe everything you see in the news or from opinion polls.
I wonder if this is still a country that would vote for such a document. We plainly have no respect for the ideas that it represents.
Would the government vote for it again, if voting for it was anything other than a meaningless gesture? I suspect not. Not if it actually had teeth.
For instance, the first article of the UDHR states that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. What it should say is something more along the lines that no form of government may make a law that prevents any human from being born free and equal in dignity and rights.
Something like that.
Granted, it's possible to strike the article from the document regardless of which way it is worded but I personally like documents such as this to have language that government is restricted from infringing my rights as opposed to government telling me what rights I have.
To quote Marvin Simkin, "Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote."
The same argument could be made for felon's rights, by the way. Either a person is too dangerous to be free or you have no business taking away his rights.
No, this is not the case. The power of the majority over the minority is limited by the constitution - the Bill of Rights proscribes the oppression of the minority at the hands of the voting majority. The constitution itself is protected from the majority (the government) by the credible threat of a well-armed populace who are willing to fight to protect it.
That's what's terrifying about the surveillance. While it could be genuinely benign right now, it only takes one bad election to put the equipment in the hands of very bad people who could do amazingly bad things with it.
Oh. That's certainly not what I understood from the quote. How is the government the majority? And then, what's the oppressed minority? The other members of congress?
I always understood that quote to mean the majority, as in, the majority of the population. Otherwise it's mixing majorities and minorities of different things, which makes no sense.
In the U.S. the law making branch of the government is comprised of representatives elected by the people. These representatives necessarily draft laws to suit the majority who elected them. Ergo, the legislative branch wields power at the behest of the majority, analogous to the wolves in the quote. Governance by mob rule, i.e. pure democracy, entails no inherent constraints on what the government (comprised of law makers elected by the majority) could do to or take from the rest of the populace. We are, instead, a constitutional republic, which constrains the majority-elected government to a narrow set of powers enumerated in the constitution.
The quote was written in 1992 in reference to two lawsuits in the state of California, itself a constitutional republic. One resulted in the quashing of a state law which was supported by the majority but nonetheless violated the state and federal constitutions. The other resulted in the removal of a cross from a popular public landmark. Much outcry was made at the time that the will of the majority was being thwarted.
I'll leave here the entirety of Simkin's posting that contained the quote:
The ACLU's cross lawsuit and the Libertarians' tax lawsuit share an interesting theme. We have been treated to the spectacle of politicians pleading for permission to continue breaking the law. In the case of the jail tax, it is particularly ironic that the lawbreakers say they need the illegal money so they can lock up the lawbreakers. Ask not for whom the lock clicks.
Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote. Those rights are spelled out in the Bill of Rights and in our California Constitution. Voters and politicians alike would do well to take a look at the rights we each hold, which must never be chipped away by the whim of the majority.
The constitution only "protected" the minority - by limiting government action - because the majority shares a democratic consensus that those rules should be followed, even if they go against some particular law they support. Otherwise, they could have simply forced the issue, even in violation of the constitution. Besides, the constitutions themselves have ways for the majority to amend them.
The constitution is just a mechanism for the citizens to have a better defined set of shared democratic beliefs. It doesn't have magical protection powers.
Yes, of course the Constitution is simply a piece of paper. It has no special powers. You can find plenty of people, perhaps even a majority, who are in favor of incremental abuses of the government such as this latest NSA scandal. You would find very few who would support wholesale dissolution of the constitution. The government could try absent consent of the people, but would face certain rebellion.
The Constitution can of course be amended, but requires more than a simple majority - a super-majority of the federal legislature to pass and ratification by 3/4 of the states. This of course does not happen often.
But fundamentally, of course the Constitution and the government exist at the behest of the people. It does not have magical protection powers. It does, however, have the protection of an armed populace willing to fight to defend it, even though some of those same people support laws that infringe on other's rights.
(Just in case anybody didn't follow the above: Failing an exam or lacking training are not crimes you can be charged with, so under the principle "Either you have enough evidence to charge them with something or you have no business restricting them from doing anything," we have no business restricting anyone from doing anything on those bases.)
Yes, it absolutely does. Life as a free person is dangerous, and being free necessarily means not being protected from potential harm caused by others. It means people are held responsible after the fact, but not restrained prior.
The difference I would say about your examples is that the actions of those people will potentially infringe directly upon the rights of others so there is probable cause for prior restraint. But even in those cases you can point out that the person wishes to perform a singular direct action without adequate training on another person that will most likely result in the harming of that person. You are at least accusing that person of wanting to do something that will likely be bad, with evidence to back it up, since performing surgery without training is a bad idea. I'm sure you can find examples of why it's a bad idea.
I would see that as quite different than preventing a person from boarding an aircraft with absolutely no evidence or, in some cases, even an accusation of any wrongdoing.
When driving a car you are the operator and need to show you can do so safely without harming others on the public road. You are not required to have a license to be a passenger in a car on a public road.
When flying in an aircraft you are a passenger and therefore no license is required. But be assured that guy up front flying the airplane has his pilot's license that shows they are capable of doing so safely.
When you are restricted from driving on a public road due to lack of a license that is society actively accusing you of being a danger to everyone else. The issue you are trying to compare this to are people being on a no-fly list that don't know why they are on this list and no one will tell them.
That's the main difference, the accusation. If the police were confiscating driver's licenses from people and forcing them to walk instead of driving without explanation, then that would be the same thing.
Now, if you have a history of attempting to bring down airplanes while in flight while you were on board, then they could rightfully restrict you from entering any other planes. At least in that case there's the accusation.
But I don't understand your thought of being restricted without trial as a strange concept. It's done all the time. Try to enter a restricted government building or a military base without permission and see how far you get. Even better, enter a stranger's house and see what happens. There are numerous restrictions in a free society that in essence helps maintain that freedom. Assuming that these restrictions are placed equally on everyone then that person next to you is restricted from doing things to you that you won't like just as much as you are restricted from doing them to him.
Of course, these restrictions can get oppressive and abusive if allowed to get out of hand.
That seems fairly different from restricting travel by air.
For instance, in many US states you are not required to have a license to operate farm equipment on a public road. There's likely many reasons for this but the rules of the road in those areas do not restrict you in those cases.
If I had a large enough tract of land that a shortcut going through the middle was beneficial to people around the property I can put up a sign at the entrance that states if you wish to use my road on my land then you follow my rules. It's the same principle.
Also, many a young teenager legally learned to drive a vehicle, cars or motorcycles, on private land even though it would be illegal for them to do so on a public road.
2. You can re-take the exam if you fail it the first time.
3. You can operate a bicycle or be a passenger on any bus or train without a driver's license.
Your argument is not applicable. Riding a plane does not involve operating a giant machine on a public road around other giant machines and pedestrians.
I imagine what the OP meant was that you have no business restricting them from doing anything otherwise lawful if they have not been charged with a crime (for example travelling or calling someone etc). Otherwise the statement is nonsensical and means they don't accept civil society and the rule of law (your interpretation).
This is a founding principle of many legal systems - that laws and restrictions have to be clearly explained and open to challenge, and judgements have to be public - and yet it has been violated in the West for some time by no-fly lists and watch-lists which have no way of being challenged, no explanation as to why people end up on them, and often no way to get off.