5 ms·

If these sites are in the jurisdiction of the US, aren't they also entitled to the same right of due process? Have any of these seizures been challenged in cour

If these sites are in the jurisdiction of the US, aren't they also entitled to the same right of due process? Have any of these seizures been challenged in court? And if so, what's the status of the cases?

bbatsell 15y ago
One, to my knowledge, and ICE and DoJ engaged in some... rather dubious behavior in response to the target attempting to discuss the actions in good faith. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110613/12021514673/rojadirecta-sues-us-government-homeland-security-ice-over-domain-seizure.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110613/12021514673/rojadi...
buro9 15y ago
Only US citizens have the right of due process.
- _delirium 15y ago
  That's not the case; non-citizens under U.S. jurisdiction also have due-process rights. For example, despite him being a French citizen, Dominique Strauss-Kahn is entitled to the standard Constitutional rights in his criminal trial, including things like being read Miranda rights, not being forced to testify against himself, and receiving a trial that accords with due process. If any of that were violated, he could appeal his case and the appeal would be heard in the same manner as if he were a U.S. citizen being tried in the same New York courts. Even foreign corporations have due-process rights; for example, Texas cannot simply seize a refinery owned by BP without some kind of legal process. The only cases I'm aware of where it's more murky are: 1) non-citizens held by the U.S. armed forces outside the territory of the U.S., alleged to be "enemy combatants"; and 2) illegal aliens awaiting deportation, who do still have some limited right to due process in challenging their deportation proceedings, but there's more controversy around it.
  - CWuestefeld 15y ago
    You're absolutely correct here. The 4th Amendment (giving protection from unreasonable search and seizure) starts off, "the right of the people...", not "the right of the citizens". Together with the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause, non-citizens get the same protections. That said, the doctrine used in asset seizure cases (generally connected to the failed war on drugs) is that it's the seized property itself that is suspected to be guilty, and property doesn't have any of these rights. One can easily imagine them trying the same crap here.
    - _delirium 15y ago
      Yeah, on the latter point, I agree that the odds are stacked against any claim. But they'd be stacked against a claim by a U.S. citizen, too; apart from the added expense of litigation, I don't think a foreign company would be at an extra disadvantage in trying to get their domain name back, just the "normal" disadvantage that comes with trying to fight administrative property seizures.
  - buro9 15y ago
    You know, I didn't actually know that. Thanks for the clarification.
  - baltcode 15y ago
    Unless, in certain cases one law overrules another even thought the two are completely separate. Case in point: https://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=139484910828&topic=14656 https://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=139484910828&topi... Note: I am not concerned with immigration, but de-facto denial of basic rights and discrimination on the basis of nationality in cases where those rights are basic human rights, and not privileges granted by the state.
    - _delirium 15y ago
      This particular linked case appears inextricably tied up with immigration, though. The person in question isn't alleging that he's being denied rights in any manner other than via the fact that he isn't allowed to legally live in the US. That's a bit different from the question of whether non-citizens caught up in the U.S. legal system (in either a criminal or civil case) have the same rights during the proceedings as citizens do.

bbatsell 15y ago

One, to my knowledge, and ICE and DoJ engaged in some... rather dubious behavior in response to the target attempting to discuss the actions in good faith. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110613/12021514673/rojadirecta-sues-us-government-homeland-security-ice-over-domain-seizure.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110613/12021514673/rojadi...

buro9 15y ago

Only US citizens have the right of due process.

_delirium 15y ago
That's not the case; non-citizens under U.S. jurisdiction also have due-process rights. For example, despite him being a French citizen, Dominique Strauss-Kahn is entitled to the standard Constitutional rights in his criminal trial, including things like being read Miranda rights, not being forced to testify against himself, and receiving a trial that accords with due process. If any of that were violated, he could appeal his case and the appeal would be heard in the same manner as if he were a U.S. citizen being tried in the same New York courts. Even foreign corporations have due-process rights; for example, Texas cannot simply seize a refinery owned by BP without some kind of legal process. The only cases I'm aware of where it's more murky are: 1) non-citizens held by the U.S. armed forces outside the territory of the U.S., alleged to be "enemy combatants"; and 2) illegal aliens awaiting deportation, who do still have some limited right to due process in challenging their deportation proceedings, but there's more controversy around it.
- CWuestefeld 15y ago
  You're absolutely correct here. The 4th Amendment (giving protection from unreasonable search and seizure) starts off, "the right of the people...", not "the right of the citizens". Together with the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause, non-citizens get the same protections. That said, the doctrine used in asset seizure cases (generally connected to the failed war on drugs) is that it's the seized property itself that is suspected to be guilty, and property doesn't have any of these rights. One can easily imagine them trying the same crap here.
  - _delirium 15y ago
    Yeah, on the latter point, I agree that the odds are stacked against any claim. But they'd be stacked against a claim by a U.S. citizen, too; apart from the added expense of litigation, I don't think a foreign company would be at an extra disadvantage in trying to get their domain name back, just the "normal" disadvantage that comes with trying to fight administrative property seizures.
- buro9 15y ago
  You know, I didn't actually know that. Thanks for the clarification.
- baltcode 15y ago
  Unless, in certain cases one law overrules another even thought the two are completely separate. Case in point: https://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=139484910828&topic=14656 https://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=139484910828&topi... Note: I am not concerned with immigration, but de-facto denial of basic rights and discrimination on the basis of nationality in cases where those rights are basic human rights, and not privileges granted by the state.
  - _delirium 15y ago
    This particular linked case appears inextricably tied up with immigration, though. The person in question isn't alleging that he's being denied rights in any manner other than via the fact that he isn't allowed to legally live in the US. That's a bit different from the question of whether non-citizens caught up in the U.S. legal system (in either a criminal or civil case) have the same rights during the proceedings as citizens do.