6 ms·

I'm sorry to be short in reply to such a well written post but - the first amendment doesn't matter, he's not an American, it's not his right to be protected or

by realce 5y ago

I'm sorry to be short in reply to such a well written post but - the first amendment doesn't matter, he's not an American, it's not his right to be protected or prosecuted over.

ProAm 5y ago
The bill or rights protects all people not just US citizens.
- cletus 5y ago
  That's true inside US jurisdictions. Outside of that, it's complicated [1]. [1]: https://inter-american-law-review.law.miami.edu/u-s-constitutions-reach/ https://inter-american-law-review.law.miami.edu/u-s-constitu...
  - ProAm 5y ago
    If he gets extradited and tried I think all those rights will be there.
    - manquer 5y ago
      That would only apply after the time he is here, not for activities before retroactively.
      - monocasa 5y ago
        I believe it's an open legal question. That's one reason why the prison at gitmo is where it is, so that the prisoners there were never brought on to US soil where the court system has the potential to grant them more rights.
tinus_hn 5y ago
How is he subject to US law but not the US constitution?
- colordrops 5y ago
  People somehow lose their ability to utilize Aristotelian logic when it comes to Assange. The unparalleled wave of propaganda unified against Assange makes people unable to question the narrative.
- einpoklum 5y ago
  Because if a state goes against this principle then the US might just kick it off the inter-back clearance system (SWIFT), or invade it, or engineer a coup against its government, or a combination of the above.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > How is he subject to US law but not the US constitution? The Constitutional rights of foreign foreign nationals is complicated [1]. Long story short, the Constitution may not protect them as fully as it does U.S. persons (Americans and foreigners on American soil). [1] https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...
  - bakuninsbart 5y ago
    Which is horrible and in desperate need of reform. If the law applies differently to foreigners, you are essentially a proto-fascist state.
  - zugi 5y ago
    Thanks for posting the article, it's pretty well summarized by: > ... it is not surprising that many members of the general public presume that noncitizens do not deserve the same rights as citizens. But the presumption is wrong in many more respects than it is right. While some distinctions between foreign nationals and citizens are normatively justified and consistent with constitutional and international law, most are not. Non-citizens don't have a fundamental right to vote, or to enter the country. Non-citizens cannot hold federal office. Non-citizens accused of crimes may be held in jail pending their trial in situations where citizens would be free pending trial. But that's a pretty short list. In fact nearly all fundamental freedoms of the Bill of Rights (speech/press/religion/assembly) and rights to a fair trial apply to citizens and non-citizens alike.
jhgb 5y ago
> the first amendment doesn't matter, he's not an American That makes no sense whatsoever to me. Where in the US Constitution is this restriction on the First Amendment?
- krapp 5y ago
  The First Amendment is part of an American document describing American precepts of law for the American government. Specifically, it prevents the American legislative body known as Congress (who represents, exclusively, the American electorate) from passing laws abridging the freedom of speech. It's implied that the First Amendment only applies to Americans, for the same reason that, say, the laws of the EU or Russia don't apply to Americans. Governments only have sovereign authority over their citizens. Mind you, the First Amendment and freedom of speech are related, but not the same, and one can easily argue that freedom of speech is universal, but not the American Constitution.
  - monocasa 5y ago
    That's not the interpretation the courts have taken. Essentially you can't take the constitution as a whole and say it applies to Americans or not. There are rights specifically conveyed to citizens (like voting). Those are clearly American only. Then in contrast to that there are rights conveyed to people generally, and rights formed as blanket restrictions on government. Those are interpreted as equally applying to non Americans.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Those are interpreted as equally applying to non Americans. But, oddly, as not applying fully to acts of the American government taken outside of the borders of the United States, which is why Gitmo is used for sketchy War on Terror detentions, and not any place on sovereign US territory rather than territory notionally leased by the US from a foreign sovereign.
      - monocasa 5y ago
wavefunction 5y ago
The 1st Amendment is a moot point as Assange is not being sought for "speech" he has made but for criminal conspiracy and providing material support in furtherance of a crime. The US Constitution does apply to anyone the US Federal Government interacts in my opinion, as it is a definition and limitation of the powers of the US Federal Government. I know it hasn't been applied in practice many times and there are Americans who disagree with this stance but they're wrong just like some people were wrong about slavery.

by realce 5y ago

I'm sorry to be short in reply to such a well written post but - the first amendment doesn't matter, he's not an American, it's not his right to be protected or prosecuted over.

ProAm 5y ago

The bill or rights protects all people not just US citizens.

cletus 5y ago
That's true inside US jurisdictions. Outside of that, it's complicated [1]. [1]: https://inter-american-law-review.law.miami.edu/u-s-constitutions-reach/ https://inter-american-law-review.law.miami.edu/u-s-constitu...
- ProAm 5y ago
  If he gets extradited and tried I think all those rights will be there.
  - manquer 5y ago
    That would only apply after the time he is here, not for activities before retroactively.
    - monocasa 5y ago
      I believe it's an open legal question. That's one reason why the prison at gitmo is where it is, so that the prisoners there were never brought on to US soil where the court system has the potential to grant them more rights.

tinus_hn 5y ago

How is he subject to US law but not the US constitution?

colordrops 5y ago
People somehow lose their ability to utilize Aristotelian logic when it comes to Assange. The unparalleled wave of propaganda unified against Assange makes people unable to question the narrative.
einpoklum 5y ago
Because if a state goes against this principle then the US might just kick it off the inter-back clearance system (SWIFT), or invade it, or engineer a coup against its government, or a combination of the above.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> How is he subject to US law but not the US constitution? The Constitutional rights of foreign foreign nationals is complicated [1]. Long story short, the Constitution may not protect them as fully as it does U.S. persons (Americans and foreigners on American soil). [1] https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...
- bakuninsbart 5y ago
  Which is horrible and in desperate need of reform. If the law applies differently to foreigners, you are essentially a proto-fascist state.
- zugi 5y ago
  Thanks for posting the article, it's pretty well summarized by: > ... it is not surprising that many members of the general public presume that noncitizens do not deserve the same rights as citizens. But the presumption is wrong in many more respects than it is right. While some distinctions between foreign nationals and citizens are normatively justified and consistent with constitutional and international law, most are not. Non-citizens don't have a fundamental right to vote, or to enter the country. Non-citizens cannot hold federal office. Non-citizens accused of crimes may be held in jail pending their trial in situations where citizens would be free pending trial. But that's a pretty short list. In fact nearly all fundamental freedoms of the Bill of Rights (speech/press/religion/assembly) and rights to a fair trial apply to citizens and non-citizens alike.

jhgb 5y ago

> the first amendment doesn't matter, he's not an American That makes no sense whatsoever to me. Where in the US Constitution is this restriction on the First Amendment?

krapp 5y ago
The First Amendment is part of an American document describing American precepts of law for the American government. Specifically, it prevents the American legislative body known as Congress (who represents, exclusively, the American electorate) from passing laws abridging the freedom of speech. It's implied that the First Amendment only applies to Americans, for the same reason that, say, the laws of the EU or Russia don't apply to Americans. Governments only have sovereign authority over their citizens. Mind you, the First Amendment and freedom of speech are related, but not the same, and one can easily argue that freedom of speech is universal, but not the American Constitution.
- monocasa 5y ago
  That's not the interpretation the courts have taken. Essentially you can't take the constitution as a whole and say it applies to Americans or not. There are rights specifically conveyed to citizens (like voting). Those are clearly American only. Then in contrast to that there are rights conveyed to people generally, and rights formed as blanket restrictions on government. Those are interpreted as equally applying to non Americans.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Those are interpreted as equally applying to non Americans. But, oddly, as not applying fully to acts of the American government taken outside of the borders of the United States, which is why Gitmo is used for sketchy War on Terror detentions, and not any place on sovereign US territory rather than territory notionally leased by the US from a foreign sovereign.
    - monocasa 5y ago

wavefunction 5y ago

The 1st Amendment is a moot point as Assange is not being sought for "speech" he has made but for criminal conspiracy and providing material support in furtherance of a crime. The US Constitution does apply to anyone the US Federal Government interacts in my opinion, as it is a definition and limitation of the powers of the US Federal Government. I know it hasn't been applied in practice many times and there are Americans who disagree with this stance but they're wrong just like some people were wrong about slavery.