David Grinspoon asks the question.

[Update in the afternoon]

I had a related article about Martian game preserves at Fox News last summer.

I hope that wasn't a faint whiff of the precautionary principle -- "You can't do anything until you know and have taken steps to avoid all possible consequences." -- that I smelled as I was reading the article.

Starbucks on Mars? Yahoo! and I don't even drink coffee.

Colonization? Damn right, colonize! Oh, but not if it's by (shudder) Americans.

This guy is not going to get any apologies from me (because the central planning committee would not approve.)

Manifest Destiny is completely right and proper, given that there are no Indians in the way.

And no, bacteria don't count. Yeah, we should grab samples for our labs before we terraform, just so we'll know what we're likely to find elsewhere.

"Some extremists have even proposed that we "claim" Mars for the United States, although there is a U.N. (remember them?) treaty that expressly forbids this."

And there is a US government that can pull out of UN treaties if it suits us. Which it might in this case.

The only alternative I'd prefer to a US occupation is a completely independent occupation that is not answerable to the UN or any terrestrial power. Then the inhabitants can build a bastion of freedom and opportunity that's superior even to the United States.

The only alternative I'd prefer to a US occupation is a completely independent occupation that is not answerable to the UN or any terrestrial power.

Initially, at least, there would probably have to be some kind of very close working relationship with some terrestrial power, if only for defensive purposes. Or maybe I'm unduly influenced by the "Semper Mars" books...

Yes

Interesting. Yes, I think we have every right to go there and do what we wish - assuming we find something worth doing there on a large scale. There are two issues, of course - philosophical and political: (1) Do HUMANS have the right to claim Mars? And, (2) do AMERICANS have the right to claim Mars?

In regards to #1, well, if Mars is lifeless, then the answer is "of course". And if we find bacteria or evidence of past life, obviously it should be well-documented before we do much. And I have no doubt it will be.
As to #2, the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 forbidding the owning of territory in space (somebody check my facts on that) should be scrapped. It's a heavily politicized Cold War document that's irrelevant today. Now, what nations should get to divvy it up? First, I don't buy the "Mars belongs to all humanity" line. That implies that a nation can only claim a small chunk of it, perhaps proportional to its population on Earth. Never mind that no one else my get there for another generation! On the other hand, nor does it seem fair that the first nation to land a person there can claim the whole thing.
A reasonable compromise would be that you can claim a chunk of territory, but it must be contiguous, and your chunk can grow only by settling new territory at its boundary. This would allow other countries (or groups of countries) to land elsewhere and start their own claim - IF they can get there.
Sigh. Life was so much simpler back when it was okay to just take everything you could lay your hands on, and screw everyone else. 8-)