4 ms·

Does this case establish precedent that the fifth amendment applies to people in Kazakhstan?

dredmorbius 5y ago
Onus of precedent would have to be that it does not. If you're able to find any such, I might have further interest in this line of questioning. Though I doubt even that.
- gowld 5y ago
  You think the US Constitution of the United States* of America restricts what the US can do to non-citizens who aren't in the US at all? What possible reason could you have for that thought? Precedent is that protections like that are created by treaties like the Geneva Convention.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27155570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27155570
  - TechBro8615 5y ago
    The question isn’t about whether the constitution restricts non-citizens, but about whether it protects them by preserving their rights. In fact I’m not sure the constitution restricts any entity other than the government. It’s laws that restrict people. And laws apply to everyone, assuming jurisdiction can be established, or extradition will be enforced. I can’t murder someone in Japan just because I’m a non-citizen there. But I could break US law by doing something not-illegal in Russia, and they probably wouldn’t extradite me.
- daperor630 5y ago
  United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined that Fourth Amendment protections do not apply to searches and seizures by United States agents of property owned by a nonresident alien in a foreign country.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    Points for a case in which a protection was held not to apply ... on a 5/4 decision. (Hand grenades, horse shoes, H-bombs, ... and SCOTUS decisions.) Which still doesn't establish that no Constitutional rights (that is, limitations on government action) apply to extraterritorial noncitizens. But props all the same for a relevant citation rather than more smoke-blowing as others have been.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    If a country's constitution has the possibility of being interpreted in such a way that non-citizens outside its borders are entitled to zero protections, then that option should be rejected under a generalised version of what has been called "the Auschwitz rule of interpretation": "in case there are two plausible interpretations of the text of a human rights treaty, one should favour that interpretation under which Auschwitz would be considered a human rights violation." https://www.ejiltalk.org/foreign-surveillance-and-human-rights-part-2-interpreting-the-iccpr/ https://www.ejiltalk.org/foreign-surveillance-and-human-righ...
    - curryst 5y ago
      I disagree with using "the Auschwitz rule of interpretation". The first reason is that it's the rhetorical equivalent of comparing someone to a Nazi. It immediately escalates the discussion to a comparison with one of the worst things humanity has done. The second is that it is either pointless, or creates a mess of international affairs. It disregards national sovereignty, so either we're going to do something about it every time another nation encroaches on what we consider natural rights (probably meaning war), or we're not going to do anything about it in which case it was a pointless exercise. Your text actually says "treaty" though, which implies an international context. It makes more sense in that context because national sovereignty still exists.

Onus of precedent would have to be that it does not. If you're able to find any such, I might have further interest in this line of questioning. Though I doubt even that.

gowld 5y ago
You think the US Constitution of the United States* of America restricts what the US can do to non-citizens who aren't in the US at all? What possible reason could you have for that thought? Precedent is that protections like that are created by treaties like the Geneva Convention.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27155570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27155570
- TechBro8615 5y ago
  The question isn’t about whether the constitution restricts non-citizens, but about whether it protects them by preserving their rights. In fact I’m not sure the constitution restricts any entity other than the government. It’s laws that restrict people. And laws apply to everyone, assuming jurisdiction can be established, or extradition will be enforced. I can’t murder someone in Japan just because I’m a non-citizen there. But I could break US law by doing something not-illegal in Russia, and they probably wouldn’t extradite me.
daperor630 5y ago
United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined that Fourth Amendment protections do not apply to searches and seizures by United States agents of property owned by a nonresident alien in a foreign country.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  Points for a case in which a protection was held not to apply ... on a 5/4 decision. (Hand grenades, horse shoes, H-bombs, ... and SCOTUS decisions.) Which still doesn't establish that no Constitutional rights (that is, limitations on government action) apply to extraterritorial noncitizens. But props all the same for a relevant citation rather than more smoke-blowing as others have been.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  If a country's constitution has the possibility of being interpreted in such a way that non-citizens outside its borders are entitled to zero protections, then that option should be rejected under a generalised version of what has been called "the Auschwitz rule of interpretation": "in case there are two plausible interpretations of the text of a human rights treaty, one should favour that interpretation under which Auschwitz would be considered a human rights violation." https://www.ejiltalk.org/foreign-surveillance-and-human-rights-part-2-interpreting-the-iccpr/ https://www.ejiltalk.org/foreign-surveillance-and-human-righ...
  - curryst 5y ago
    I disagree with using "the Auschwitz rule of interpretation". The first reason is that it's the rhetorical equivalent of comparing someone to a Nazi. It immediately escalates the discussion to a comparison with one of the worst things humanity has done. The second is that it is either pointless, or creates a mess of international affairs. It disregards national sovereignty, so either we're going to do something about it every time another nation encroaches on what we consider natural rights (probably meaning war), or we're not going to do anything about it in which case it was a pointless exercise. Your text actually says "treaty" though, which implies an international context. It makes more sense in that context because national sovereignty still exists.