4 ms·
I do not believe this interpretation is correct. In a criminal proceeding in the US, a defendant--whether a citizen or not--has a right to counsel, as guarante
by hncommenter13 13y ago
I do not believe this interpretation is correct. In a criminal proceeding in the US, a defendant--whether a citizen or not--has a right to counsel, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution.
As this is not a criminal prosecution, the right to counsel does not necessarily apply. Under present law, border searches are quite different from normal searches, even for US citizens.
- rayiner 13y agoI didn't say "citizen". I said "foreigner not in the US". I was under the impression that the guy was not in the US.
- einhverfr 13y agoBut still, revoking a lawyer's visa for defending someone even elsewhere is pretty sketchy if you ask me.
- rayiner 13y agoExtremely sketchy. Not illegal.
- marvin 13y agoYou realize how ridiculous this sounds to any ally or trading partner of the US, right? What US authorities are saying is basically that non-citizens of the US do not have basic human rights.
- einhverfr 13y agoActually what it says is a lot more pernicious than that: Sure, if you are in the US you have a right to legal representation regarding trials, but if you are outside the US, the US reserves the right to say whether you have a right to legal representation. It's worse than saying you don't have basic rights. Now, maybe the lawyer in question was actually doing something illegal or highly questionable. However we will never know at this point.
- Filligree 13y agoHe's a high-class, nationally famous lawyer. I seriously doubt he'd do anything illegal.
- EliRivers 13y agoI recall that the current administration reserves for itself the right to assassinate US citizens (and indeed, non US citizens) without trial, and has done so. Everything else pales in comparison.