[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.