5 ms·

The Fourth only protects 330 million out of 7 billion people. However, if we don't help US citizen for their democracy, we'll have no weight for ours.

by aragot 12y ago

Taek 12y ago
Interesting that the "Bill of Rights" wouldn't apply universally. We're all human.
- pm90 12y ago
  AFAIK the US Constitution is just a contract put forth by the US citizens limiting the power of the US Govt. By agreeing to obey the constitution, you become a US citizen and vice-versa. Although the principles apply universally, they have a legal basis to be enforced (by the US judiciary) only in the US.
  - philsnow 12y ago
    Wouldn't it be lovely if we considered citizens of other countries to be (sorry to abuse the term) "first class citizens" w.r.t. what rules we apply to them / how we govern or limit ourselves when surveilling them? We could hold ourselves to a higher standard, but we take the (without a doubt efficacious, but) low road. Possibly impractical nowadays from a national security standpoint in the "you can't get there from here" sense, but lovely nonetheless.
    - chc 12y ago
      If we did that, they would also be governed by things like federal drug law and tax law. It does not seem desirable to apply the same rules both to citizens and non-citizens.
      - danenania 12y ago
        Rights are different from laws. There is no 'right to be taxed', but there are rights to privacy. Alleging that basic rights do exist but should only apply to human beings who live inside the borders of your own country is just a fundamentally bigoted position. It's essentially admitting that certain lines should not be crossed in allowing people a decent and dignified existence, but then proclaiming only 5% of the world deserves that dignity due solely to the accident of where they're born. You might as well be separating the world into 'people who matter' and 'people who don't', which, as we've learned through history both ancient and recent, provides a great basis for activities like torture and genocide. Not exactly what you'd hope for from an enlightened democracy.
  - logfromblammo 12y ago
    Technically, it was a contract put forth by some citizens of the several states in confederation, to create a government with enumerated powers. That is, it both enabled and limited at the same time. In a strictly technical sense, the US Army is prohibited from disarming citizens of Iraq in their own country, for instance. But they might just do it anyway. Because said foreigners would not be able to petition for relief anywhere else but in a US federal courts, and there are currently several barriers to them initiating an action there, which largely do not exist for citizens in the US, that foreigner is usually unable to exercise those rights using strictly peaceful means. In short, it's far easier to form your own militia and kill any agents of the US that you find in your own country. That seems like bad policy all the way around. It would be much better if the US just obeyed its own laws anywhere it goes in the world. It might even be prudent to set up a 12th federal circuit, with at least one district in each country with which the US has an extradition treaty, to support cases with jurisdiction established by Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 1: "and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." Such courts would be authorized by the Constitution, but as far as I am aware, none exist. If there were a foreign circuit, it is likely that Guantanamo Bay detainees could file Habeas Corpus motions in it. Foreign banks could fight to restore their privacy safeguards while still serving US customers. Private military contractors might face civil suits from the families of people randomly gunned down in the streets of their own cities. If the US had to obey its own laws everywhere around the world, it would certainly devolve into pure chaos~
    - techsupporter 12y ago
      Interestingly enough, we did (kind of) try this once. There used to be a United States Court for China in the first half of the 1900s. This court exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction over U.S. citizens living in China. Appeals were heard in the 9th Circuit. What I find most intriguing (or appalling) is that a District Court judge in the Western District of Washington (State) held in 1942 that a U.S. citizen who was tried, convicted, and sentenced in the U.S. Court for China was not entitled to Constitutional rights. Judge Black wrote in Casement v. Squier[0] that Petitioner Leroy Lomax, then-incarcerated on McNeil Island was "mistaken in his contention that the Constitution of the United States guaranteed him a trial thousands of miles beyond the boundaries of the United States." Lomax said that his confinement was unconstitutional because he had been denied a trial by jury (one of Americans, versus the bench trial he received). Judge Black quoted the U.S. Supreme Court decision In re Ross[1], where Justice Field wrote "[t]he Constitution can have no operation in another country." Thus, the Petitioner in Casement was denied habeus corpus. I've not studied law, so I'd like to hope that this was "clarified" or overturned, though I don't hold much hope. 0 - http://www.leagle.com/decision/194234246FSupp296_1271 http://www.leagle.com/decision/194234246FSupp296_1271 1 - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/140/453/case.html https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/140/453/case.htm...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

The Fourth only protects 330 million out of 7 billion people. However, if we don't help US citizen for their democracy, we'll have no weight for ours.

by aragot 12y ago

The Fourth only protects 330 million out of 7 billion people. However, if we don't help US citizen for their democracy, we'll have no weight for ours.

Taek 12y ago

Interesting that the "Bill of Rights" wouldn't apply universally. We're all human.

pm90 12y ago
AFAIK the US Constitution is just a contract put forth by the US citizens limiting the power of the US Govt. By agreeing to obey the constitution, you become a US citizen and vice-versa. Although the principles apply universally, they have a legal basis to be enforced (by the US judiciary) only in the US.
- philsnow 12y ago
  Wouldn't it be lovely if we considered citizens of other countries to be (sorry to abuse the term) "first class citizens" w.r.t. what rules we apply to them / how we govern or limit ourselves when surveilling them? We could hold ourselves to a higher standard, but we take the (without a doubt efficacious, but) low road. Possibly impractical nowadays from a national security standpoint in the "you can't get there from here" sense, but lovely nonetheless.
  - chc 12y ago
    If we did that, they would also be governed by things like federal drug law and tax law. It does not seem desirable to apply the same rules both to citizens and non-citizens.
    - danenania 12y ago
      Rights are different from laws. There is no 'right to be taxed', but there are rights to privacy. Alleging that basic rights do exist but should only apply to human beings who live inside the borders of your own country is just a fundamentally bigoted position. It's essentially admitting that certain lines should not be crossed in allowing people a decent and dignified existence, but then proclaiming only 5% of the world deserves that dignity due solely to the accident of where they're born. You might as well be separating the world into 'people who matter' and 'people who don't', which, as we've learned through history both ancient and recent, provides a great basis for activities like torture and genocide. Not exactly what you'd hope for from an enlightened democracy.
- logfromblammo 12y ago
  Technically, it was a contract put forth by some citizens of the several states in confederation, to create a government with enumerated powers. That is, it both enabled and limited at the same time. In a strictly technical sense, the US Army is prohibited from disarming citizens of Iraq in their own country, for instance. But they might just do it anyway. Because said foreigners would not be able to petition for relief anywhere else but in a US federal courts, and there are currently several barriers to them initiating an action there, which largely do not exist for citizens in the US, that foreigner is usually unable to exercise those rights using strictly peaceful means. In short, it's far easier to form your own militia and kill any agents of the US that you find in your own country. That seems like bad policy all the way around. It would be much better if the US just obeyed its own laws anywhere it goes in the world. It might even be prudent to set up a 12th federal circuit, with at least one district in each country with which the US has an extradition treaty, to support cases with jurisdiction established by Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 1: "and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." Such courts would be authorized by the Constitution, but as far as I am aware, none exist. If there were a foreign circuit, it is likely that Guantanamo Bay detainees could file Habeas Corpus motions in it. Foreign banks could fight to restore their privacy safeguards while still serving US customers. Private military contractors might face civil suits from the families of people randomly gunned down in the streets of their own cities. If the US had to obey its own laws everywhere around the world, it would certainly devolve into pure chaos~
  - techsupporter 12y ago
    Interestingly enough, we did (kind of) try this once. There used to be a United States Court for China in the first half of the 1900s. This court exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction over U.S. citizens living in China. Appeals were heard in the 9th Circuit. What I find most intriguing (or appalling) is that a District Court judge in the Western District of Washington (State) held in 1942 that a U.S. citizen who was tried, convicted, and sentenced in the U.S. Court for China was not entitled to Constitutional rights. Judge Black wrote in Casement v. Squier[0] that Petitioner Leroy Lomax, then-incarcerated on McNeil Island was "mistaken in his contention that the Constitution of the United States guaranteed him a trial thousands of miles beyond the boundaries of the United States." Lomax said that his confinement was unconstitutional because he had been denied a trial by jury (one of Americans, versus the bench trial he received). Judge Black quoted the U.S. Supreme Court decision In re Ross[1], where Justice Field wrote "[t]he Constitution can have no operation in another country." Thus, the Petitioner in Casement was denied habeus corpus. I've not studied law, so I'd like to hope that this was "clarified" or overturned, though I don't hold much hope. 0 - http://www.leagle.com/decision/194234246FSupp296_1271 http://www.leagle.com/decision/194234246FSupp296_1271 1 - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/140/453/case.html https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/140/453/case.htm...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]