[flexie]

In general, whenever it comes to human rights - or civil rights as Americans like to call it - it's appalling that they distinguish between citizens and foreigners (or aliens as they label us).

Imagine European countries denying human rights to non citizens: Okay to torture a Somali? No problem throwing Americans in prison without trial? Sure, let's wiretap cell phones of all Turks in Europe? I don't think so.

[mpyne]

> Sure, let's wiretap cell phones of all Turks in Europe? I don't think so.

Wait, Germany was actually shown to be engaging in surveillance of Turkish telecommunications... for 38 years.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/23/us-germany-turkey-...

And while you may argue that they're only targeting diplomats, policy makers, etc., NSA makes the same argument: they have to collect a lot to make it even possible to surveil the far smaller set that they target.

Furthermore, German politicians expressly talk about the need for intelligence on human traffickers, drug smugglers and terrorists as a justification to spy on Turkey. How does BND manage to spy on just the bad guys without getting the rest of the law abiding Turkish citizens in their dragnet?

So no offense but leave off with this faux moral superiority, as EU states certainly differentiate in their treatment between citizens and aliens for many "rights" that the state provides, just as the U.S. does. Just ask the Romanian immigrant to the U.K. that lost her 'welfare tourism' case in a recent final ruling in the ECJ.

[chestnut-tree]

"Just ask the Romanian immigrant to the U.K. that lost her 'welfare tourism' case in a recent final ruling in the ECJ."

That was actually a case from Germany, not the UK

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30011512

However, I agree with your broader point that there is hypocrisy from all sides in this debate.

[mpyne]

Thanks. I wish I'd remembered that from when I read the article yesterday as in many ways it even over-emphasizes the point I was making.

[MisterWebz]

The article doesn't seem to mention the methods the BND uses to target Turkey. It could be that they target specific individuals of the Turkish government instead of storing and analyzing everything that goes in and out of Turkey.

As for the question of Turkey being a valid target, let me remind you that several people in the Turkish government were planning a false flag operation in order to invade Syria.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/world/europe/high-level-le...

[mpyne]

> It could be that they target specific individuals of the Turkish government instead of storing and analyzing everything that goes in and out of Turkey.

Maybe. But how do they do that? Do they individually hack into routers only when and where needed to keep up with their targets? What do they do when the packets used by their targets hop to a different router? What do they do when their target uses a mobile over 4G instead of their PC and Ethernet? What do they do when the data packets emitted by the target's mobile are transferred as a batch with a bunch of people not relevant to the intelligence need?

Maybe they do filter first and only store information relevant to their specific targeted intelligence needs. If NSA limited themselves to that, would your concerns go away?

> As for the question of Turkey being a valid target, let me remind you that several people in the Turkish government were planning a false flag operation in order to invade Syria.

You're preaching to the choir here. But let me remind you, that on Sept. 11, 2001, several people in the al Qa'ida organization actually carried out a real operation that resulted in ~3,000 deaths directly (not all American either), the destruction of a significant amount of property, and the launch of the "global war on terror" and invasion of Afghanistan. Even more, it set the conditions politically in the U.S. for the later invasion of Iraq. Truly, the consequences were quite epochal.

Yet many opponents of NSA surveillance will tell you quite bluntly that even counter-terrorism is not an important enough concern to make surveillance on the Internet worth the cost to civil liberties. They'll even tell you that more people die of car accidents every year than died in 9/11. What would you say to them? Why is it OK to target Turkey to detect covert false flag attacks but not OK to target transnational terrorist organizations that are actually killing people every single day, and plotting further attacks?

[atmosx]

> European countries [...]

To which European countries are you referring? The ones that imposed the Dublin treate[1] which effectively turned Greece and Italy into an huge refugee camp overnight? These countries to give a damn about aliens too.

Those Iraqi, Iranian, Pakistani (soon Syrians to be expected en masse) refugees do not risk their lives to come to Greece. They want to go to Germany, Sweden, France, the UK etc. But since Greece's PM (Kostas Simitis[2]) signed that treaty, Greece is forced to make front on the huge number of refugees arriving from wars that NATO (mostly UK and US) make directly or indirectly (see Syria) in the middle east without any financial or other kind of help from the EU, because of this treaty...

As a result, in Greece we have more than 2+ millions refugees. The government has run a disgraceful program (ironically named "Xenios Dias" - loosely translated as Foreigner Zeus, linked to the ancient Greek belief that foreigners should be protected by Zeusm thus sheltering a stranger was some kind of obligation), which in practice means take all refugees are taken away and put on guarded jails until they die out of something[3]. The rise of the Nazi party in Greece, which has close ties with the current government on so many levels, is partly because of the Dublin Treaty and the incapability of Greece to handle the situation.

Anyway, sorry for the rant...

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Regulation#Criticism

[2] Konstantinos Simitis is considered along G. Papandreou and current PM the most hated PMs in Greece's recent history (after 1974). He was the PM when Greece along with Godlman Sachs falsified the Greek statistics in order for Greece to enter Euro, which led to it's current situation along with other strings of scandals.

[3] http://www.tovima.gr/society/article/?aid=424639 (Greek article but take a look at the picture).

[Nursie]

That's interesting. Genuinely. Part of the public dialog about refugees in the UK is that we wonder why we get so many. I'm not sure of the numbers and I would be surprised if they are anywhere near as high as those in Greece but...

The reasoning goes that if these people are genuinely in fear of their lives, if they're running away from somewhere, why are they not claiming asylum in the first peaceful, developed country they arrive at?

There are slum-like camps in some parts of northern France that are full of people trying to find a way to smuggle themselves over the sea to the UK. This makes little sense to me, unless they are really economic migrants, not refugees at all.

Perhaps we should have some sort of europe-wide policy, where people must declare as soon as they arrive in the EU, and then each country agrees to take a quota so that the southern/eastern countries aren't swamped.

[atmosx]

I'm glad someone found my rant interesting and I'm happy the this discussion is becoming part of the public dialog in other places as well.

> [...] if these people are genuinely in fear of their lives, if they're running away from somewhere, why are they not claiming asylum in the first peaceful, developed country they arrive at?

Sorry but that's totally unrealistic. You're making assumptions that do not hold in real life. A refugee which will seek asylum from Greek/Italian authorities will end-up 99.99% in a concentration camp. He might very well be beaten first. Police brutality in Greece is renowned.

> There are slum-like camps in some parts of northern France that are full of people trying to find a way to smuggle themselves over the sea to the UK. This makes little sense to me, unless they are really economic migrants, not refugees at all.

They just try to go, to the place which they believe will be better for them. They might have a family, or some sort of link there, or they just heard from someone that it's better in London.

> Perhaps we should have some sort of europe-wide policy, where people must declare as soon as they arrive in the EU, and then each country agrees to take a quota so that the southern/eastern countries aren't swamped.

Perhaps it should be, or (given the raise of right-wing anti-EU all over Europe[1]) maybe it's just too late. The EU was marketed as something, but clearly turned out to be something else.

[1] Marrie-Lepen in France (clearly anti-EU), Syriza (is pro-EU officially, but there is a strong left-wing anti-EU segment inside the party) in Greece, Grillo in Italy (clearly anti-EU), UKIP in the UK (clearly anti-EU), not sure about 'Podemos' policy towards EU in Spain but they can't be very positive.

[Nursie]

>> Sorry but that's totally unrealistic. You're making assumptions that do not hold in real life. A refugee which will seek asylum from Greek/Italian authorities will end-up 99.99% in a concentration camp. He might very well be beaten first. Police brutality in Greece is renowned.

If that really is the case I can understand why they don't want to stop!

>> Perhaps it should be, or (given the raise of right-wing anti-EU all over Europe[1]) maybe it's just too late.

You might be right. There is a lot of public discussion in the UK about leaving the EU entirely. It's not just UKIP, the conservatives have promised a referendum on membership if they win next year too.

This whole area of debate is very sensitive and I think it would probably steer the debate even more towards UKIP if it were to start now. Nobody wants to actually talk sensibly about this stuff.

[glibgil]

"The rise of the Nazi party in Greece... is partly because of the Dublin Treaty and the incapability of Greece to handle the situation."

The rest can be blamed on racism.

[rayiner]

It's not a matter of distinguishing between citizens and foreigners on the mere basis of their being citizens and foreigners. It's a matter of distinguishing between people who have obligations under American law (people physically present on American soil or people with American citizenship) and those who do not.

Rights are the reciprocal of responsibilities.[1] American law cannot impose responsibilities on a Frenchman living and acting in France. Correspondingly, American law does not extend rights to that person.

And I can't speak to EU law, but my understanding is that Canada's law is similar to that of the U.S. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Liberties is only applicable in Canada: http://pi.library.yorku.ca/ojs/index.php/sclr/article/view/3....

[1] Rhetoric aside, the tradition of Anglo-American law is that "rights" only bind the actions of the government to the extent that they are recognized by the social compacts that bind the nation together. Someone outside the compact cannot be bound by its rules, but nor can those within the compact be bound as to that person.

[sillysaurus3]

American law cannot impose responsibilities on a Frenchman living and acting in France. Correspondingly, American law does not extend rights to that person.

This is a design decision that parents have taught their children to believe is normal and sensible. It's also effective. Nothing like an "us vs them" mentality to unify a nation.

But what if some country tried to extend rights to foreigners anyway? There's nothing stopping anyone from doing so.

Does anyone know whether this has been tried before, and how the country fared? Can we look at the data? Did they fall victim to the foreigners taking advantage of the new rights? Or did they encourage a better world as a result of the reforms?

The tendency to exclude is practically ingrained into the human soul. Does it have to be that way? Are people so fundamentally wired to expolit each other that nobody can make the first gesture of acceptance without immediately being exploited?

Sadly, it's possible. But it doesn't seem like we should allow ourselves to believe that people generally aren't trustworthy unless evidence forces us to agree. Imagine living life without trusting anybody.

[henrikschroder]

> But what if some country tried to extend rights to foreigners anyway?

One way that this is done today is that, for example, persecuted minorities have an easier time being granted asylum in a some countries. One specific example would be that many European countries grant LGBT refugees asylum if they flee from an oppressive country where their lives are threatened.

[crazypyro]

Slightly offtopic, but since you seem to take a small offense, or at least, use it as fuel for your argument....

Alien is simply a historical term. It is derived from the latin term alienus which means something that belongs to another. So an alien to a country represented someone who belonged to another country. There is nothing rude or egregious about that label....

[ta75757]

As a former "alien" myself, I was never offended by this. It's a technical term.

[thisjepisje]

Woooho, I´m an alien, I´m a legal alien

[chimeracoder]

> In general, whenever it comes to human rights - or civil rights as Americans like to call it

Not to detract from the point you are making, but just to clarify, I would not use the terms 'human rights', 'civil rights', or 'civil liberties' as synonymous. Legally, they have very different technical meanings, but colloquially they not used interchangeably either.

A very rough distinction legally: human rights are those which are bestowed by virtue of being born. Many (though not all) of the rights listed on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[0] require no active action on the part of a government entity; rather, it would require active action not to respect those rights. Civil rights are those which are bestowed civilly, but are not inherently violated in the absence of government (or another third party).

An example of the distinction colloquially: until very recently, marriage equality activists had to be very careful not to describe gay marriage as a 'civil right' in certain contexts, because among the African American community, 'civil rights' has a very specific meaning, and using it to describe the plight of (white) LGBT individuals[1] was not always received well.

[0] http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

[1] Today we think of gay marriage as a relatively innocuous issue within the LGBT community, but it used to be quite divisive. It was seen as an initiative that affected mostly the white and wealthy members of the community, whereas issues such as LGBT homelessness affected primarily non-white members.

[winter_blue]

Many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights use the term "persons", and not "citizens". Most of the basic rights in the US Constitution are extended to all human beings, even including undocumented aliens.

[chimeracoder]

Yes, but be careful when interpreting the bill of rights from a literal interpretation of the text. The actual meaning of the constitution as applied by the courts is what is legally binding (legal precedence under common law)[0], and there are numerous cases in which rights are applied differently for citizens and non-citizens.

One can make the argument that the literal text of the constitution is "what the Founding Fathers meant", but one can also easily argue that since the Constitution is a living document, the effective interpretation and application of the Constitution by the courts, bound by legal precedent, is "what the Founding Fathers meant" as well.

One can also make the argument that since judicial review as we currently know it began with Marbury vs. Madison in 1803[1], so the courts should not have this level of authority when interpreting the consitution.

But then one can make the argument that.... well, you get the idea.

This debate predates the text editor wars by a couple of centuries, so don't expect to see it resolved conclusively anytime soon! :)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

[rmc]

Imagine European countries denying human rights to non citizens:

cough European countries have a history of doing just that. Hence why they don't tend to do it anymore.

[Igglyboo]

Yep the world used to be horrible and barbaric pretty much everywhere but we're talking about modern day.

[rmc]

It was less than 100 years ago. Which in Europe, isn't that long ago.

[freehunter]

Not that long ago? It's longer than I've been alive. Any my parents. And my grandparents. You'd have to get to my great-grandparents before they could say they've been alive for 100 years or are able to remember anything about World War II.

In relationship to the age of the planet or the age of the species, no its not a long time. In relationship to the age of the people, it's been long enough.

[HCIdivision17]

As a light aside:

"The difference between the British and Americans is the British think 200 miles is a long distance and Americans think 200 years is a long time."

I've gotten a kick out of that perspective, as it seems to support some of the odd disconnects people have with times and spaces.

[rmc]

Works all over Europe. I was talking to American friend who moved from US Mid West to Seattle. It's a distance of ~3,200 km. From where I am in western europe, I'd have to drive to Jerusalem to have a similar distance. Even "far away" places like Moscow were 'only' 2,500km away. The sheer distances in North America are massive compared to Europe.

[thirsteh]

So the same as the U.S., then?