ryan1 wrote:
And Duke, the founders of the US said pretty clearly in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal. I don't think they had in mind that we should deny rights to people from other countries simply because they are not US citizens. What an absurd ideology. Do you honestly believe that we should not extend rights such as habeas corpus to non-citizens?
People almost always bring this up in arguments similar to this. The problem with the Declaration of Independence is that it isn't an official government document in the sense that it's mostly just a complaint to England stating the reasons why the United States was rebelling. Sure, the words and ideology are there, but it isn't a law document. In fact, the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" was actually changed from "life, liberty, and property" since at the time, obviously not everyone could own land. And at the time, not all men were equal. You and I know that. Slavery was prevalent from the 1600's up until the Civil War and abolition. Even today, it is still debatable whether or not people are still equal in this country. Now, in regards to the Declaration, I think Jefferson hit it on the nail when he said all men are created equal, but in a practical and real world perspective, we know this still isn't always true today.
I would disagree on the point that they didn't have in mind to deny rights to non-citizens. This again goes back to the point that it's because of the fact that we are citizens that we even have rights in the first place. Does it make sense to have rights in a country where it doesn't matter if you are a citizen of that country or not in order to have the same rights? It simply is because of the fact that we are US citizens that we are
guaranteed these rights. I'm not trying to say that I don't want foreigners to come over here or when they do to treat them with disrespect or anything of the kind. What I'm saying is that we have a Constitution for a reason and we clearly define what people are citizens and who are not. The ideology might be absurd in your opinion, but perhaps an analogy might clarify and bring closer to home what I'm talking about.
Say you are living in your home. It's your house that you bought and paid for or perhaps maybe you built it. You own the land and everything on it. Everything in the house belongs to you. There isn't a single thing on your property that is owned by someone else. Say you also have a family in your house, your own family. You all share everything on that land and in that house and everyone in that house is treated equally and fairly. Now imagine a stranger comes to your home. You invite them into your house because you think they are well meaning, but more importantly because you believe they will respect your home and everything you own. Are you going to treat that stranger the same way you would your own family? Are you going to allow them to do the same things in your house that your family or friends would normally do? Or are you going to have them follow your rules about being in your house and on your land? It is your land after all.
What I'm trying to say is that you as a home and land owner have a vested interest in what is yours. You may trust people close to you to handle it, but for the most part, anyone you don't know isn't going to be treated the same as people you do know. It's out of self-interest and self-protection that you act in this way, is it not? So it is with the United States. It's not the fact we don't like foreigners, but that the people who live in the United States are guaranteed rights in this country since they live here. Since foreigners don't have the same vested interest in this country, how could they expect to have the same rights as the people here who do, those same people who work, live, and pay taxes in this country? Do other countries have the right to tell another country how to run it's affairs or what laws to enact or enforce? No, they don't.
On your last point of habeus corpus, I don't believe non-citizens should have that right either. But, I'd clarify that with saying that the person shouldn't be detained by the state without good reason or evidence. If the state is detaining people and holding them for no reason at all, then that is a grave injustice and isn't a problem with rights, but rather with corruption of the law.
So in summary, I'd say any country is entitled to run their affairs within reason as they see fit as long as it doesn't breach ethical grounds or harm human beings. If a state is run correctly, these types of issues won't come up. Sure, someone may visit from the Middle East or Russia or Europe and say something bad about America while they are here. That is their choice. But realize what I'm saying here. It's a choice for them to say that. Nobody is hold a gun to their head telling them to say what a bad country the United States is. They say it or act of their own accord. Don't you believe people should be responsible for their words and actions? What is a world where no one takes responsibility for their actions and simply expects society to protect them? This type of mindset is inherently lazy and the kind of thing you would see in an internet forum or chat room where people are anonymous and can say or do whatever the heck they like. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Does it not still have a place in this world today as it did hundreds and thousands or years ago?
I didn't see your post Creepy until I wrote all this, but I'm pretty sure I talked about your last statement somewhere in there. What I'd say as I said at the end of the last paragraph is that if you expect speech to be a right granted to everyone, then they should at least have the guts to take responsibility for what they say and not whine about the consequences it may bring. This kid didn't seem to really have any remorse for what he said and was fine with the consequences which leads me to believe that this isn't as big an issue as I or anyone else thinks it to be. If he is fine with the punishment levied against him, then I think he is taking responsibility for what he said. Granted, I still believe the punishment was way to harsh for just a simple email, but the fact that he's ok with it and isn't making a huge fuss over it tells me something about his level of character as opposed to the justice of the FBI and any other organizations that levy harsh things like this.
)
Theres a lot worse.
