4 ms·

They weren't a US citizen they where Australian so the judge didn't need probable cause. Why do so many people think that human rights flow from US citizenship

They weren't a US citizen they where Australian so the judge didn't need probable cause. Why do so many people think that human rights flow from US citizenship? That's not how the Constitution works. The 4th Amendment to the Constitution doesn't say anything about citizenship: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The Bill of Rights is a set of limitations on the government, saying that the government is not allowed to do these things. It doesn't say anything about who they might hypothetically be doing them to, just that they cannot do it. So regardless of your citizenship, the government can't prevent you from practicing your religion, can't throw you in jail without a trial, and they can't search you without a warrant. This applies to any actions the US government takes, regardless of who they're directed against and where.

xxpor 7y ago
You've clearly never read most OLC memos. Especially ones used to justify killing random Iraqis.
- CWuestefeld 7y ago
  This touches on the Guantanamo Bay thing, too, where people are being held without trial. The gov't position is that they're enemy combatants, and thus covered by the rules of war. I don't buy that, but there you go. It just goes to show that the people (whoever they might be) need to be continually vigilant - in a sense, government is always the adversary.
refurb 7y ago
That's clearly untrue. Otherwise we wouldn't have the CIA as an organization to spy on foreigners. It is true you don't need to be a US citizen to have protection. However, you do need to be under the jurisdiction of the US (on US soil). Otherwise, the US Constitutional rights don't apply to you.
- salawat 7y ago
  The CIA doesn't feed or perform as a part of the United States Justice system (parallel construction or the occasional slip aside). Therefore, using it as a argument for why due process is only restricted to a certain group is a bit of a non-sequitur. A case against a foreign person still has to be conducted through proper channels, either with Constitutional protections in force if the U.S. has ultimate jurisdiction, or through diplomatic channels to ensure conformance with whatever other country considers due process or actionable if the U.S. doesn't have ultimate jurisdiction. This doesn't really negate the GP's point in the way you may have been intending to.
  - CWuestefeld 7y ago
    I agree (unfortunately) with everything you said. While the government technically isn't allowed to do some of these things, the way our judicial system works, there's no lever with which these can be stopped (other than at the ballot box, and it seems no one cares enough to vote based on this). In particular, what little controversy there was surrounding the Edward Snowden revelations showed us that the Courts don't recognize any of us as having standing to pursue the question in court.
- SoylentYellow 7y ago
  No, the applicability of Constitutional rights outside the US has yet to be completely settled. The Supreme Court discussed that issue somewhat in Hernandez v. Mesa in the current session. I suggest listening to the oral arguments on oyez.org. It is a sad and infuriating, but also fascinating case.
Godel_unicode 7y ago
The meaning of that amendment turns on the phrase "the people". Who, exactly, are they? Many constitutional cases have determined that you are a member of "the people" by being either physically in the US, or outside but a US citizen. See also FISA.
wang_li 7y ago
The sixteenth amendment to the US constitution says: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Are you saying that the US congress has the legal authority to collect income taxes from every human on earth?

xxpor 7y ago

You've clearly never read most OLC memos. Especially ones used to justify killing random Iraqis.

CWuestefeld 7y ago
This touches on the Guantanamo Bay thing, too, where people are being held without trial. The gov't position is that they're enemy combatants, and thus covered by the rules of war. I don't buy that, but there you go. It just goes to show that the people (whoever they might be) need to be continually vigilant - in a sense, government is always the adversary.

refurb 7y ago

That's clearly untrue. Otherwise we wouldn't have the CIA as an organization to spy on foreigners. It is true you don't need to be a US citizen to have protection. However, you do need to be under the jurisdiction of the US (on US soil). Otherwise, the US Constitutional rights don't apply to you.

salawat 7y ago
The CIA doesn't feed or perform as a part of the United States Justice system (parallel construction or the occasional slip aside). Therefore, using it as a argument for why due process is only restricted to a certain group is a bit of a non-sequitur. A case against a foreign person still has to be conducted through proper channels, either with Constitutional protections in force if the U.S. has ultimate jurisdiction, or through diplomatic channels to ensure conformance with whatever other country considers due process or actionable if the U.S. doesn't have ultimate jurisdiction. This doesn't really negate the GP's point in the way you may have been intending to.
- CWuestefeld 7y ago
  I agree (unfortunately) with everything you said. While the government technically isn't allowed to do some of these things, the way our judicial system works, there's no lever with which these can be stopped (other than at the ballot box, and it seems no one cares enough to vote based on this). In particular, what little controversy there was surrounding the Edward Snowden revelations showed us that the Courts don't recognize any of us as having standing to pursue the question in court.
SoylentYellow 7y ago
No, the applicability of Constitutional rights outside the US has yet to be completely settled. The Supreme Court discussed that issue somewhat in Hernandez v. Mesa in the current session. I suggest listening to the oral arguments on oyez.org. It is a sad and infuriating, but also fascinating case.

Godel_unicode 7y ago

The meaning of that amendment turns on the phrase "the people". Who, exactly, are they? Many constitutional cases have determined that you are a member of "the people" by being either physically in the US, or outside but a US citizen. See also FISA.

wang_li 7y ago

The sixteenth amendment to the US constitution says: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Are you saying that the US congress has the legal authority to collect income taxes from every human on earth?