4 ms·

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 appl

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.

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.