3 ms·

That's splitting hairs, in my opinion. There is a distinction possible between "established by treaty" and "established by an Act of Congress pursuant to a tre

That's splitting hairs, in my opinion. There is a distinction possible between "established by treaty" and "established by an Act of Congress pursuant to a treaty", but I didn't think it was necessary to make it upthread. My main point was that foreign states need not become one of the United States to be protected by certain rights clauses in the U.S. Constitution. The key question is how to make the agents of the U.S. obey U.S. laws when outside of U.S. territorial jurisdiction, and there are many possible answers that do not involve extending U.S. territorial jurisdiction beyond its current bounds. If there are no district courts outside U.S. territory, suing the U.S. as a foreign person may become prohibitively expensive in relation to the magnitude of the offense. The suit could further be impeded by using immigration laws against the plaintiff, possibly impeding discovery or appearances. Retaining a local attorney would be de facto required rather than optional, and hourly rates might combine with currency exchange rates and national economies to ensure that the price tag is simply too high.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> My main point was that foreign states need not become one of the United States to be protected by certain rights clauses in the U.S. Constitution. But the courts argument is irrelevant to that. To the extent that the US Constitutional rights (or other rights under US law) extend to foreign nationals in foreign territory, the existence of a US court on their soil is irrelevant to such protection, it has no effect either way. So the whole court thing was a non sequitur. > If there are no district courts outside U.S. territory, suing the U.S. as a foreign person may become prohibitively expensive in relation to the magnitude of the offense. That might be a practical concern, but it is irrelevant to the actual legal concern, which is that it is well-established law that many protections of the US Constitution do not, in fact, apply to foreign persons outside of the US in the same way as they apply either to US citizens or to persons within the US (some don't apply at all, and even for those that do, the differences in factual circumstance between US and foreign jurisdiction and the fact that the US government has express granted powers in governing relations with foreign nations changes how they apply), and that, in fact, to be protected by those rights in the same way as would be the case for those within the US, the states they were in would, contrary to your argument, need to become part of the United States.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> My main point was that foreign states need not become one of the United States to be protected by certain rights clauses in the U.S. Constitution. But the courts argument is irrelevant to that. To the extent that the US Constitutional rights (or other rights under US law) extend to foreign nationals in foreign territory, the existence of a US court on their soil is irrelevant to such protection, it has no effect either way. So the whole court thing was a non sequitur. > If there are no district courts outside U.S. territory, suing the U.S. as a foreign person may become prohibitively expensive in relation to the magnitude of the offense. That might be a practical concern, but it is irrelevant to the actual legal concern, which is that it is well-established law that many protections of the US Constitution do not, in fact, apply to foreign persons outside of the US in the same way as they apply either to US citizens or to persons within the US (some don't apply at all, and even for those that do, the differences in factual circumstance between US and foreign jurisdiction and the fact that the US government has express granted powers in governing relations with foreign nations changes how they apply), and that, in fact, to be protected by those rights in the same way as would be the case for those within the US, the states they were in would, contrary to your argument, need to become part of the United States.