[saraid216]

> Rights (such as the bill of rights) are generally expressed as belonging to "people", not just the citizens of the US.

Erm. Are we reading the same Constitution? There's only one instance of the word in there and it's talking about IP ("To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"). The understanding of IP law that I've seen is that American patents don't apply internationally: they have to be converted over to the other governments' systems.

> It's also in the spirit of the declaration of independence that "all men are created equal", which would lead one to believe that they all have certain inalienable rights, citizen or otherwise.

This is the same Declaration of Independence that didn't bother including slaves and women as "men", yes? Just to be clear on what the "it" you're referring to isn't being changed by modern times.

> It also doesn't mean that Russians are subject to American law (at least not while in Russia), but that for things such as rights, they apply to everyone.

The essential claim here is that rights granted by American law apply to Russians.

What you're not saying, but perhaps are meaning to say, is that there ought to be legal structures that transcend national boundaries to apply to the entire human race and that we can in turn derive American law from such a structure such that there are situational effects at a national level. The UN, and the UNDHR, come closest to this but American law does not recognize the UNDHR as anything but a set of suggestions. Judges do not use it as a guideline. Legislators do not use it as a blueprint. (And further, the UN does not have in its membership the entire human species.)

That would make sense. It would reduce Americans' sense of sovereignty, and thus would be fought tooth and nail by the xenophobic culture you reference, but it would then make sense to talk about universal human rights.

It's funny. I've been of the mind for the past decade and a half that we need a species-level government precisely in order to achieve effects like this, but it's also specifically the people who want these effects who are most horrified at the prospect.

So perhaps that's not what you're meaning to say. Maybe you're suggesting that there's a moral Lawgiver who hands down rights and everyone should listen to Him for a change? That's what the Founders largely thought, after all.

[simonh]

> The understanding of IP law that I've seen is that American patents don't apply internationally

Of course they don't apply to other governments, they apply to the US government. The constitution, and American law, tells the American government what rights it ought to enforce or protect, within it's jurisdiction.

> This is the same Declaration of Independence that didn't bother including slaves and women as "men", yes?

It makes no such distinction. Didn't the US have a civil war over this? Which side won?

> The essential claim here is that rights granted by American law apply to Russians.

In places where American law applies, yes. Do you think they shouldn't?

[saraid216]

> The constitution, and American law, tells the American government what rights it ought to enforce or protect, within it's jurisdiction.

No, it doesn't. You can keep asserting this, but making up claims from thin air is not actually enforced law.

> It makes no such distinction. Didn't the US have a civil war over this? Which side won?

Are you proposing that we should have a feminist versus anti-feminist war? Because I'm pretty sure the anti-feminists would win that one right now.

> In places where American law applies, yes. Do you think they shouldn't?

My opinion isn't material. My questions have, aside from the philosophical digression, been about the factual ground we're upon.

Because if American law applies to foreign nationals, then Guantanamo becomes a lot less illegal. Quote passages of US Code, or other relevant law. Not your philosophical opinion, which isn't the point here. If you want to discuss what should be, then let me say that I don't even want America to exist. That's how far afield we're going if you want to know what my opinions are.

[comex]

I have no idea where this argument is supposed to be going. In general, Constitutional rights apply to non-citizens within the US, and this has been held since at least 1886, see e.g. http://www.salon.com/2010/02/01/collins_5/. There have been various Supreme Court cases over the last decade about whether they apply to people under the jurisdiction of but not inside the US, namely Guantanamo detainees. Outside of US jurisdiction, there are circumstances in which residents of foreign countries can violate US law (criminal or civil matters), which involve interacting with the US, such as (for better or worse) "cybercrime", in which case the US can attempt to extradite them or take other measures. These are separate issues, but only the one about Guantanamo detainees is at all controversial.