[furyg3]

I've said it before, but why WOULDN'T a country provide protections and rights to non-citizens (residents or not) that it outlines in it's constitution? After all, the US founding fathers believed it to be "self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". If it is always wrong for a government to do certain things, then clearly it is wrong for a government to do those things no matter to whom they are done.

Morally it's clear that you should treat others by the standards that you believe to be universal.

A government's ability to guarantee and protect these rights is, of course, limited by its geography. Other people may have different value systems which mean they protect a different set of rights than those defined in the US constitution (although the DoI does declare them to be 'unalienable'). But that's not what people are talking about when they talk about US government spying internationally. The US government violates rights it considers to be universal, and many of the people who's rights are violated are in countries with similarly enshrined values, and also who's countries are not at war with the US.

[MereInterest]

Completely agreed, especially with the US Constitution's philosophy of restricting the government, rather than providing rights for citizens. A government can only guarantee rights for citizens that are under its jurisdiction, but it can always forbid itself to take actions.

[zaroth]

I think you're missing a key tenant of the purpose of government. Of the people, for the people, doesn't mean all humanity, but rather the people who are being governed and both pay into and benefit from the system. Government being a collective outsourcing of the force required to achieve some common good, again, for the people doing the outsourcing.

That's not to say there couldn't be ratified treaties between countries which give up some measure of sovereignty in order to set some better ground rules. We ratify all sorts of treaties like that, Obama ratified (by executive order, which I didn't know was possible) the Paris accord just last week. But I don't know of any treaties the US has signed to limit non-domestic wiretapping.

[justthisonetime]

And I call BS when I see it. A nation state is morally responsible to it's citizens to uphold the law and order and protect it's citizens [from threats internal and external]. This is funded by the tax money collected by the state from it's subjects. Nation state may, willingly provide protections and other services reserved for it's citizens to others. But concept that it must or should is flawed at heart. World today remains a hostile place and the game for supremacy remains as strong as ever.

[GunboatDiplomat]

This is obviously true. It's equally obvious that the neoliberal consensus is opposed to this and seeks to substitute a globalist fantasy.