Exactly right. A moral high ground built on an axiom of 'our citizens are now deserving of human rights than anyone else's' is more of a moral tar pit than a high ground.
If foreigners can't submit to our responsibilities, then they can't have our rights. The US doesn't rule the whole world, and the world doesn't want US to. Therefore, conflicts will arise, and there is no fair play among warring nations.
This might be a fair point if the US government was only claiming that the (supposedly inalienable) human rights which it respects in its own citizens are only suspended as against citizens of countries the US is in a state of war with.
But it doesn't. It claims that they don't apply to any non-Americans (outside US borders, at least - non-US citizens inside US borders do have some protections, IIRC). And the US courts seem to agree (e.g. US v. Verdugo-Urquidez)
The US is not at war with the entire rest of the world.
> If foreigners can't submit to our responsibilities, then they can't have our rights.
The original assertion was about what is moral. To make sure I understand you correctly - you're claiming that because I don't have responsibilities to the US government (I don't pay US taxes etc. being not a US citizen), it's not immoral for the US government to act in a way that, if I was a US citizen, would be an actionable breach of my fundamental rights?
