4 ms·

> There are lots of people in the US that believe strongly in the rule of law. >And that it applies to foreign citizens who have – quite sensibly – never set f

> There are lots of people in the US that believe strongly in the rule of law. >And that it applies to foreign citizens who have – quite sensibly – never set foot on your soil? Of course it does. That's like saying a foreign terrorist can't be charged for an act of terrorism because they're not a U.S. citizen. Furthermore, because Assange is a foreign national, 1st Amendment protections do not apply in this situation.

dpwm 7y ago
> That's like saying a foreign terrorist can't be charged for an act of terrorism because they're not a U.S. citizen. One man's might-is-right flag-waving US exceptionalism is another man's terrorism.
- kortilla 7y ago
  Everything is so relative man... /s
- microwavecamera 7y ago
  Look I'm not defending anything our country does and what they did to Manning was unconscionable. I think Manning acted in good faith, she may have crossed the line some but the punishment far exceeded what the situation merited. But I can't say the same about Assange. Now I'll admit the espionage charge is very "odd" for attempting to crack a password. But Assange did some stupid dangerous crap and got himself caught up. Simultaneously embarrassing and royally pissing off the CIA, NSA and the DOD is an epically dumb thing to do. I don't know what he was expecting to happen or what his game plan was. What the hell was he thinking? Manning got thrown under the bus, Assange stood in the middle of the road and dared it to run him over. I don't know how sorry I should feel for him at this point.
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    If Assange is beholden to hold up US law, why would that only be applicable to some of them? And what about the issue of war crimes?
  - belorn 7y ago
    We live in a world where if you criticize the government enough to piss off the espionage department of your country, your only choice is to run to east if you live in the west and west if you live in the east.
- fit2rule 7y ago
  Yeah, the flip side to this argument is pretty heinous: American war criminals can be prosecuted any time, any place they show up outside of Americas' borders. Except, they can't, because the USA will protect them, even threatening to INVADE any country which attempts to reign their war criminals in. Duplicity is the order of the day.
gnaritas 7y ago
> Furthermore, because Assange is a foreign national, 1st Amendment protections do not apply in this situation. Not remotely true, the first amendment protects anyone and everyone from government infringement. All of the bill of rights applies to anyone, citizens or not. Try reading them, they say what the government cannot do, nowhere will you find it saying but only to citizens.
kelnos 7y ago
There's a [dead] reply that seems to refute this, and I'm not sure why it's dead. The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Nowhere in there does it mention "citizens". Only "people". And you don't need to be a US citizen to be a person. The first result[0] of a quick Google search suggests that federal courts do indeed believe that the Constitution protects to non-citizens. [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/01/30/does-the-constitution-protect-non-citizens-judges-say-yes/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/01/30/does-th...
- jolfdb 7y ago
  It should be obvious that that Constitution doesn't apply to people who aren't even in USA at all.
  - Zak 7y ago
    The Constitution applies to the government; it says what the government must, may, and mustn't. do. The government mustn't interfere with anyone's free speech.
- rootusrootus 7y ago
  Can't say why it was downvoted to oblivion. But I personally don't know what the right answer is. We already rely on SCOTUS to tell us what the First Amendment really means and how it applies, since as written it just says "Congress shall make no law..." which is kinda specific. So it seems like we're past the point where we can interpret any other part of that clause literally. Now, all disclaimers given, I figure the Constitution ought to apply to anyone within it's jurisdiction, which to my mind means that if you are subject to our jursdiction for criminal purposes, you're subject to our constitution for it's protections as well.
  - drewmol 7y ago
    >I figure the Constitution ought to apply to anyone within it's jurisdiction, which to my mind means that if you are subject to our jursdiction for criminal purposes, you're subject to our constitution for it's protections as well. I fully agree, hopefully the SCOTUS will confirm this in a ruling at some point. Additionally the Declaration of Independence included this statement: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" I think the consent to be governed should be established whether implied or expressed in a way more specific that just being a person somewhere on earth.

dpwm 7y ago

> That's like saying a foreign terrorist can't be charged for an act of terrorism because they're not a U.S. citizen. One man's might-is-right flag-waving US exceptionalism is another man's terrorism.

kortilla 7y ago
Everything is so relative man... /s
microwavecamera 7y ago
Look I'm not defending anything our country does and what they did to Manning was unconscionable. I think Manning acted in good faith, she may have crossed the line some but the punishment far exceeded what the situation merited. But I can't say the same about Assange. Now I'll admit the espionage charge is very "odd" for attempting to crack a password. But Assange did some stupid dangerous crap and got himself caught up. Simultaneously embarrassing and royally pissing off the CIA, NSA and the DOD is an epically dumb thing to do. I don't know what he was expecting to happen or what his game plan was. What the hell was he thinking? Manning got thrown under the bus, Assange stood in the middle of the road and dared it to run him over. I don't know how sorry I should feel for him at this point.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  If Assange is beholden to hold up US law, why would that only be applicable to some of them? And what about the issue of war crimes?
- belorn 7y ago
  We live in a world where if you criticize the government enough to piss off the espionage department of your country, your only choice is to run to east if you live in the west and west if you live in the east.
fit2rule 7y ago
Yeah, the flip side to this argument is pretty heinous: American war criminals can be prosecuted any time, any place they show up outside of Americas' borders. Except, they can't, because the USA will protect them, even threatening to INVADE any country which attempts to reign their war criminals in. Duplicity is the order of the day.

gnaritas 7y ago

> Furthermore, because Assange is a foreign national, 1st Amendment protections do not apply in this situation. Not remotely true, the first amendment protects anyone and everyone from government infringement. All of the bill of rights applies to anyone, citizens or not. Try reading them, they say what the government cannot do, nowhere will you find it saying but only to citizens.

kelnos 7y ago

There's a [dead] reply that seems to refute this, and I'm not sure why it's dead. The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Nowhere in there does it mention "citizens". Only "people". And you don't need to be a US citizen to be a person. The first result[0] of a quick Google search suggests that federal courts do indeed believe that the Constitution protects to non-citizens. [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/01/30/does-the-constitution-protect-non-citizens-judges-say-yes/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/01/30/does-th...

jolfdb 7y ago
It should be obvious that that Constitution doesn't apply to people who aren't even in USA at all.
- Zak 7y ago
  The Constitution applies to the government; it says what the government must, may, and mustn't. do. The government mustn't interfere with anyone's free speech.
rootusrootus 7y ago
Can't say why it was downvoted to oblivion. But I personally don't know what the right answer is. We already rely on SCOTUS to tell us what the First Amendment really means and how it applies, since as written it just says "Congress shall make no law..." which is kinda specific. So it seems like we're past the point where we can interpret any other part of that clause literally. Now, all disclaimers given, I figure the Constitution ought to apply to anyone within it's jurisdiction, which to my mind means that if you are subject to our jursdiction for criminal purposes, you're subject to our constitution for it's protections as well.
- drewmol 7y ago
  >I figure the Constitution ought to apply to anyone within it's jurisdiction, which to my mind means that if you are subject to our jursdiction for criminal purposes, you're subject to our constitution for it's protections as well. I fully agree, hopefully the SCOTUS will confirm this in a ruling at some point. Additionally the Declaration of Independence included this statement: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" I think the consent to be governed should be established whether implied or expressed in a way more specific that just being a person somewhere on earth.