Could someone from the US please explain the whole thing behind US citizens/foreigners being considered deserving of different levels of protection with regards to human rights? Are those of us not blessed with US citizenship somehow less "worthy"? Is it really the case that conducting surveillance or drone strikes against foreigners is any different, morally and ethically, than those against US citizens?<p>To be honest, from an outsider's view this comes across as a very arrogant and entitled attitude. I most certainly sympathise with and share the outrage many Americans feel about their government's abuses of human rights, but there seems to be a view among some quarters that it's only because they're Americans that it's a problem, and forget everyone else. I've also seen this attitude in my own country (Australia) with regards to some of our regional neighbours.<p>What happened to "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"?<p>I realise that to some that these questions may come across as trolling, but I'm genuinely curious about how we arrived at this state of affairs.
I'm honestly lost around the US citizen issue. I mean since Ted Bundy was a US citizen he should be more protected during an act of violence? Or are citizens of other countries valued less? If someone is an active combatant for whatever the "other side" is, and we're ok using drones, then it's on as far as I'm concerned. (I'm a US citizen for context)
Since when are redactions shown as white space on a white background?<p>Is this standard procedure, or is it to deliberately obscure what has been censored?