3 ms·

"When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not wrong him. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall lo

"When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not wrong him. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt; I the Lord am your God." (Parasha Vayikra (Leviticus) 19:33-34)

alexeisadeski3 13y ago
Non citizens living and visiting the US have the same protections as US citizens. US citizens only get special protection when outside of the country; the NSA still isn't really supposed to spy on them then, though technically and legally they probably could.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Technically they obviously could, legally the Fourth Amendment does apply, but for that case the FISC is used to obtain warrants if needed, instead of the normal law enforcement warrant pipeline. The larger concern is probably simply that as long as any party to a communication is a non-U.S. person outside the U.S., that communication is fair game for the NSA under EO 12333 authority alone.
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    >legally the Fourth Amendment does apply Legally the Fourth Amendment probably does not apply. Constitutional protections are provided only within US jurisdiction. If you are a US citizen outside of US jurisdiction, then the government isn't required to extend those protections to you. The lack of spying on US citizens outside of US borders is more of a courtesy - the government doesn't yet consider it worth rolling the Supreme Court dice.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Thanks for making me double check, seems you're right. The most restrictive requirement seen in courts appears to be a "reasonableness" requirement judging by the totality of the circumstances involved: http://www.volokh.com/posts/1227548515.shtml http://www.volokh.com/posts/1227548515.shtml
garrettgrimsley 13y ago
Rather than relying on a religious text we can reference rulings, like Boumediene v. Bush[1] and and the US constitution. This article by Greenwald[2] neatly examines the whether constitution protections apply to foreigners. [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1195.ZO.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1195.ZO.html [2] http://www.salon.com/2010/02/01/collins_5/ http://www.salon.com/2010/02/01/collins_5/ I'm not naive enough to believe that any regime would show restraint as a result of the existence of these rulings, but hey, they exist.
- rayiner 13y ago
  The cliche cynicism is contradicted by the fact that these rulings led to dozens of trials of Guantanamo detainees, and most detainees have either been released or given trials. The remainder of detainees are a minority that are politically intractable to deal with, but their treatment doesn't clearly contradict the Supreme Court's Guantanamo cases.
  - garrettgrimsley 13y ago
    Whether or not they are "hard to deal with" is not basis for denying one a writ of habeas corpus. Should we not let a court decide, rather than the executive branch arbitrarily denying these rights? Taking the fact that there are still people in Guantanamo being denied their rights after a court determined that they should be granted a trial into consideration clearly demonstrates that just because such court decisions have been made does not mean the executive will respect them. Certainly this means that my cynicism is justified, albeit cliche.

alexeisadeski3 13y ago

Non citizens living and visiting the US have the same protections as US citizens. US citizens only get special protection when outside of the country; the NSA still isn't really supposed to spy on them then, though technically and legally they probably could.

mpyne 13y ago
Technically they obviously could, legally the Fourth Amendment does apply, but for that case the FISC is used to obtain warrants if needed, instead of the normal law enforcement warrant pipeline. The larger concern is probably simply that as long as any party to a communication is a non-U.S. person outside the U.S., that communication is fair game for the NSA under EO 12333 authority alone.
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  >legally the Fourth Amendment does apply Legally the Fourth Amendment probably does not apply. Constitutional protections are provided only within US jurisdiction. If you are a US citizen outside of US jurisdiction, then the government isn't required to extend those protections to you. The lack of spying on US citizens outside of US borders is more of a courtesy - the government doesn't yet consider it worth rolling the Supreme Court dice.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Thanks for making me double check, seems you're right. The most restrictive requirement seen in courts appears to be a "reasonableness" requirement judging by the totality of the circumstances involved: http://www.volokh.com/posts/1227548515.shtml http://www.volokh.com/posts/1227548515.shtml

garrettgrimsley 13y ago

Rather than relying on a religious text we can reference rulings, like Boumediene v. Bush[1] and and the US constitution. This article by Greenwald[2] neatly examines the whether constitution protections apply to foreigners. [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1195.ZO.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1195.ZO.html [2] http://www.salon.com/2010/02/01/collins_5/ http://www.salon.com/2010/02/01/collins_5/ I'm not naive enough to believe that any regime would show restraint as a result of the existence of these rulings, but hey, they exist.

rayiner 13y ago
The cliche cynicism is contradicted by the fact that these rulings led to dozens of trials of Guantanamo detainees, and most detainees have either been released or given trials. The remainder of detainees are a minority that are politically intractable to deal with, but their treatment doesn't clearly contradict the Supreme Court's Guantanamo cases.
- garrettgrimsley 13y ago
  Whether or not they are "hard to deal with" is not basis for denying one a writ of habeas corpus. Should we not let a court decide, rather than the executive branch arbitrarily denying these rights? Taking the fact that there are still people in Guantanamo being denied their rights after a court determined that they should be granted a trial into consideration clearly demonstrates that just because such court decisions have been made does not mean the executive will respect them. Certainly this means that my cynicism is justified, albeit cliche.