To what extent are the citizens of the US obligated to protect and promote human rights in foreign territories

Question

General Custer:
Why do you hate americans so much?

or

That's OK I haven't been attacked by any paper bags lately.

Answer 1

i sure as hell wouldn't protect yours, if you ever needed help you dumb a$$!

Answer 2

Technically speaking, US citizens have no legal or constitutional obligation to protect and promote human rights in foreign territories. We certainly have an obligation to do so within our own country according to our constitution and bill of rights.

From a moral point of view on the other hand, our humanity transcends territories and borders. We are united around the world in our common humanity. The term "human rights" means that all people, regardless of territory, have a certain human dignity, just because we are people. As a result all people have the right to certain conditions that protect our dignity and help human civiliation to flourish. Social conditions that hurt human rights are associated with repressive governments and all forms of suffering and violence.

When we do things that undermine the dignity of others, either by causing those in other countries to suffer or allowing it, we undermine our own human dignity at home. When we enhance the dignity of others, we acknowledge our own dignity.

It is in the interest of people of our country to promote human rights in foreign territories, to help to alleviate the suffering of others and in the process protect our human dignity.

The tricky part of public policy is that many political actions taken in the "interest" of human rights, are sometime actually promoting a different agenda. Given the complexity of politics, the question becomes how do you meet the interests of your own country and to do it in a way that protects the human rights of people in any country.

Just my initial thought!

Answer 3

I have to believe that citizens of the US are no more or less obligated. Human beings, regardless of their origin, develop beliefs and create self-imposed obligations that should come before any government mandated overseas policies or other charitable efforts. Human rights are stomped on everywhere, including the US. How each citizen responds to that should be his or her choice, not obligation...

Answer 4

I personally believe that we should protect the human rights of other people to the extent that we do not kill anybody. Not even Osama Bin Laden. He should be locked up in a crappy prison for the rest of his life and die there, though not executed. Americans though are killing innocent Iraqi civilians for the hunt for "terrorists". America should get its killing strategy reconsidered. Instead of arms capable of murder, we should have stun guns that incapacitate people for enough time to put that person in handcuffs. Though now due to all of the guns out, there is no possible way that we could use that.

Answer 5

None at all it is the obligation of those in eachs own country to establish what they feel are Human Rights and not someone else enforcing their will upon other sovereign nations.

Answer 6

Though the government has obligations, I don't think that civilians have any unless they chose to join Amnesty International or something. In fact, it's probably dangerous to do so.

Answer 7

Human Rights .. blah blah blah. If we lose this war ask the Muslims who take over to honor those "rights" and see how long your head says affixed to your torso.

Liberals and their "useful idiots" think GWB is the enemy while they are watching Nick Berg getting his head cut off. Are they stupid or simply blind?

Answer 8

we are not according to Mr. Bush violatoing international human rights laws is an acceptable activity against non American citizens

Answer 9

Obligated by treaty in many cases!

Answer 10

Good question. I'm getting tired of doing it when our kids are dying for it.