3 ms·
It seems that wisdom prevailed and at 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush it was ruled to be un
by sharpneli 12y ago
It seems that wisdom prevailed and at 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush it was ruled to be unconstitutional. However not surprisingly it did not appear widely in media.
But we still have Fourth Amendment. Basically it doesn't apply to normal people outside US simply because we are not US citizens. Therefore the term people on the constitution cannot mean "people" in general.
Or your Government is breaking it's own laws. I don't know. They are not my laws nor have we been educated on them. You probably know better.
- krapp 12y agoI don't personally see a problem with a country defining its laws as applying only to itself - the US would have no right to assert that the Fourth Amendment applies to foreign nationals not on US soil anymore than the EU would have to assert that their laws apply to random US citizens. Although... I think the backlash happening here is right and understandable - other countries certainly do have the right to decide under what terms the US can interact with them (although not always the means to carry it out.) That said, I think Guantanamo bay demonstrates that foreigners do have rights in the US, since one of the reasons it exists is to create a legalistic "black hole" whereby the detainees don't have access to the rights they typically might. I think "your Government is breaking it's own laws" is closer to the truth.