N.Y. Terror Trials

[Stosh]

The US constitution does not apply to non US citizens Elganned...try again

But the Libertarian candidate for president says it does. Time to get busy!

To Whom Does The Bill Of Rights Apply?
by Harry Browne
by Harry Browne

My article on Torture has also prompted some dissent – mostly contesting my statement that the Bill of Rights applies equally to American citizens and non-citizens. Here are a couple of examples:

The Preamble to the Constitution established an implication of American citizenship [[that is, "We the people of the United States of America...") The amendments, that we now call the Bill of Rights, were amendments to that Constitution.

And:

That Constitution was written by and for the Citizens of the United States of America. It does not apply to Citizens or Subjects of another Country. So, what is done to terrorists by us or to others outside of the United States, as long as they are NOT citizens of the United States is NOT covered under our Constitution. Ya gotta get your facts straight or you'll sound like one of those fuzzy-headed Left Wing Communist and Socialist Retal Cavity's.

Retal cavity's?

I made the mistake in my article of focusing on the fact that the only references to "citizens" in the Constitution have nothing to do with the rights of the people. That's true but it's a roundabout way of making the case.

The important point is that the Constitution doesn't apply to Americans, it doesn't apply to citizens, it doesn't even apply to "people." It applies to the federal government. The body of the Constitution tells the federal government what it is allowed to do, and in some places it explains how to do it [[election procedures and such). The Bill of Rights tells the federal government what it is not allowed to do . . .

1. Make no law abridging freedom of speech, press, religion, or assembly,
2. Do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
3. Don't quarter soldiers in peacetime.
4. Don't conduct unreasonable searches and seizures.
5. Don't commit double jeopardy or force people to testify against themselves.
6. Don't deny an accused a speedy trial.
7. Don't deny an accused a trial by jury.
8. Do not impose excessive bail.
9. Just because certain rights of the people aren't mentioned in this Constitution doesn't mean you're allowed to usurp them.
10. Don't exercise any power not authorized in this Constitution.

Where exceptions were meant to apply, they are specifically stated. And there are no exceptions stated for any type of guns, for any type of speech, for any specific crimes, or for crimes where non-citizens are involved.


My overriding point in the article was that, until a suspected "terrorist" gets a fair and impartial trial, you don't know whether he is a terrorist. So even if you think non-citizen terrorists have no rights, how do you even know for sure that they are terrorists – or that they are non-citizens – until every facet of due process has been applied.

The Bush administration is trying to establish procedures whereby it can lock up a suspect for life without giving him access to an attorney, without any judicial process, without even letting him tell his family where he is. If this should apply only to non-citizens, consider this scenario:
Some men in flak jackets intercept you on your way home from work one day. They spirit you away to an Air Force base, where you're put on a plane and taken to Egypt. You are tortured daily for weeks, until you confess to being a Syrian terrorist and you give your oppressors information about terrorist cells – information you invent in order to get them to stop torturing you.
When you ask them why they think you're a foreign terrorist, they tell you that a neighbor earned a reward for informing on you. When you ask them when you'll be released, they tell you that you'll probably be confined [[without trial) for the rest of your life, because the War on Terrorism will never end and terrorists are too dangerous to let loose.
Meanwhile, back in the United States, human rights groups complain that the government is imprisoning and torturing American citizens in violation of the Bill of Rights. But the President tells the press and public not to worry – that only non-Americans are being imprisoned and only terrorists with vital information are being tortured.
You can't prove that you're neither a foreigner nor a terrorist, because there has been no impartial judicial hearing in which you have the benefit of an attorney, the right to confront your accusers and cross-examine them, and the judgment of a jury of your peers.
But then, you shouldn't have those rights because law-enforcement agencies have information that you're a foreign terrorist.
But don't worry; this isn't really happening. All those people confined in Guantanamo, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in other countries to which the U.S. government has transferred people? They're certainly guilty and they're certainly foreign – or our government would never have put them in prisons.
So go back to sleep. Your government will protect you.

January 19, 2005

Harry Browne [send him mail], the author of Why Government Doesn't Work and many other books, was the Libertarian presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000. See his website.

Copyright © 2005 Harry Browne

Remember, even the devil himself can quote Scripture...

[ccbatson]

The Federal Government of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA has jurisdiction over its' citizens via the Constitution

There...is that better? [[even though it is the same take home message)

[Stosh]

The Federal Government of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA has jurisdiction over its' citizens via the Constitution

There...is that better? [[even though it is the same take home message)

You are not paying attention. Due process is an important part of the body of law in this country. Without it, we are less free. For someone that insists that liberty is important, you sure are full of it when it comes down to it.

Reread the portion starting with the words "My overriding" in Harry's point. Learn from it. Take your head out of that dead old broad's behind for once and actually percieve what is going on around you. It would be helpful.

[ccbatson]

The terrorist portion isn't relevant to the jurisdiction of the constitution, that is the error that he is making. Whatever behavior that threatens our security on whatever scale, when perpetrated by a non citizen, said person is not subject to the constitution vis a vis civil rights to adjudicate the issue at hand. it is either an issue of an act of war being subject to the international laws governing that form of justice, or, as in these cases, a military tribunal for nonuniformed enemy combatants.

[d.mcc]

The terrorist portion isn't relevant to the jurisdiction of the constitution, that is the error that he is making. Whatever behavior that threatens our security on whatever scale, when perpetrated by a non citizen, said person is not subject to the constitution vis a vis civil rights to adjudicate the issue at hand. it is either an issue of an act of war being subject to the international laws governing that form of justice, or, as in these cases, a military tribunal for nonuniformed enemy combatants.

Does it say in the constitution that all Citizens are created equal???

[d.mcc]

Out of context libs...D.mcc asked "what tribunals" suggesting that I was making it up. So, as per his challenge, I provided a few links describing the historic precedents on the subject proving him wrong...again...as usual.

Said tribunals were widely viewed as kangaroo courts with almost no chance of presumed guilt overturned:

Chief Justice of the United States Harlan Fiske Stone called the Nuremberg trials a fraud. "[[Chief US prosecutor) Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg," he wrote. "I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas."

'Harlan Fiske Stone: Pillar of the Law', Alpheus T. Mason, [[New York: Viking, 1956)

Associate Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas charged that the Allies were guilty of "substituting power for principle" at Nuremberg. "I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled," he wrote. "Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time."

'Dönitz at Nuremberg: A Reappraisal', H. K. Thompson, Jr. and Henry Strutz, [[Torrance, Calif.: 1983)

The defendants were not allowed to appeal or affect the selection of judges. A. L. Goodhart, Professor at Oxford, opposed the view that, because the judges were appointed by the victors, the Tribunal was not impartial and could not be regarded as a court in the true sense:

"Attractive as this argument may sound in theory, it ignores the fact that it runs counter to the administration of law in every country. If it were true then no spy could be given a legal trial, because his case is always heard by judges representing the enemy country. Yet no one has ever argued that in such cases it was necessary to call on neutral judges. The prisoner has the right to demand that his judges shall be fair, but not that they shall be neutral. As Lord Writ has pointed out, the same principle is applicable to ordinary criminal law because 'a burglar cannot complain that he is being tried by a jury of honest citizens.'"

^ A. L. Goodhart, "The Legality of the Nuremberg Trials", Juridical Review, April, 1946.

Article 21 of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal [[IMT) Charter stipulated:

"The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. It shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United [Allied] Nations, including acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and the records and findings of military and other Tribunals of any of the United [Allied] Nations"

I assume those were the Tribunals you referred to?

[elganned]

The terrorist portion isn't relevant to the jurisdiction of the constitution, that is the error that he is making. Whatever behavior that threatens our security on whatever scale, when perpetrated by a non citizen, said person is not subject to the constitution vis a vis civil rights to adjudicate the issue at hand. it is either an issue of an act of war being subject to the international laws governing that form of justice, or, as in these cases, a military tribunal for nonuniformed enemy combatants.

"Enemy combatants" who were not scooped up on a battlefield but snatched off the streets of civilian cities far from the action? Or caught by third parties and handed over to US intelligence for a bounty? Where exactly do those "combatants" fit into your scheme?

How incensed would you be if some US citizen in Portugal, for example, were kidnapped and shipped over to Argentina for interrogation via "enhanced techniques" and then subjected to a kangaroo military "tribunal"?

Because that's where this leads; what's sauce for the goose will inevitably become sauce for the gander.

[rb336]

Whatever behavior that threatens our security on whatever scale, when perpetrated by a non citizen, said person is not subject to the constitution vis a vis civil rights to adjudicate the issue at hand

where in the constitution, or in the history of constitutional law, is there support for that statement? oh yeah -- there isn't any

it is either an issue of an act of war being subject to the international laws governing that form of justice, or, as in these cases, a military tribunal for nonuniformed enemy combatants.

and the bushies -- and you -- argued that those international treaties didn't matter

c'mon, which way do you want to have it?

[ccbatson]

"We the people of..." that is where. I am surprised you missed that.

[Stosh]

"We the people of..." that is where. I am surprised you missed that.

That statement is who sets down the law, not whom it governs. Context...

[d.mcc]

"We the people of..." that is where. I am surprised you missed that.

Amendment VI [[1791)

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

[elganned]

"...the right to a speedy and public trial..."

Well, you can scratch that first one off the list--eight years later ain't speedy by any measure.

[ccbatson]

How many strikes do you guys get? "We the people of" means the citizens of the United States....not non citizens.

[elganned]

Depends on how many wild pitches you throw. You've already walked four or five of us...when does your manager pull you for a reliever?

"We the People" says we establish these rules for our government. Nowhere does it imply that the implementation of such rules only applies to US citizens.

But thanks for another softball. Another walk, another run scored. Keep pitching 'em, Cc. Keep pitching 'em.

[d.mcc]

How many strikes do you guys get? "We the people of" means the citizens of the United States....not non citizens.

Implication is the same as assuming. What happens when we assume little boy?

[ccbatson]

We the people OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA...no implication, no assumption...next.

[d.mcc]

We the people OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA...no implication, no assumption...next.

You still ignored all my other arguments, with sources and quotes when you said the LAST time military tribunals worked great

[dfunkycity]

"Enemy combatants" who were not scooped up on a battlefield but snatched off the streets of civilian cities far from the action?

This argument is by far the dumbest I have ever heard in my entire life.

They committed crimes in a damn war =zone. I don't care if his fat ass was tanning in the bahamas when we snatched him.

He is a war criminal.

By your logic, then the serb they just caught who was hiding out and Demunak should both get civilian trials.

Get a real argument please.

[dfunkycity]

But the Libertarian candidate for president says it does. Time to get busy!



Remember, even the devil himself can quote Scripture...

I find myself once again feeling sick in agreement with a liberal.

Damn u Stosh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2Kh-xzerjE

[elganned]

This argument is by far the dumbest I have ever heard in my entire life.

You need to get out more, then. Watch Fox News; you'll see a lot dumber ones.

They committed crimes in a damn war =zone. I don't care if his fat ass was tanning in the bahamas when we snatched him.

A charge yet to be proven. Which is what this conversation is all about...did you miss the beginning of the movie?

He is a war criminal.

See above. At least we're FINALLY starting some proceedings to determine that.

By your logic, then the serb they just caught who was hiding out and Demunak should both get civilian trials.

Actually, yes.

Get a real argument please.

Quite the contrary; this is the real argument. Maybe you can't recognize it from your truncated world view, so I'll spell it out:

Snatching people off the street and/or paying bounties for people and then HOLDING THEM INCOMMUNICADO AND TORTURING THEM FOR EIGHT YEARS WITHOUT ANY SORT OF A HEARING is both against our Constitution and our most deeply held beliefs of human dignity and human rights.

That is what third-world tin-pot dictators do. That's not--or at least shouldn't be--who we are as a people or a nation.

I'm glad they're finally getting a trial. I would have been mollified if they had gotten a hearing before a "military tribunal" seven years ago, though I think the tribunal idea was a clear attempt to end-run both US and international law in service to right-wing fear.

At least now we'll have some sort of resolution. THAT'S what I support.

[ccbatson]

War criminals are afforded rights under the Geneva Convention...enemy combatants should not as they do not adhere to rules of engagement.

[Rideron]

Just for clarification; the Constitution does not proclaim the 'all men are created equal".

That is from the Declaration of Independance; which is not a governing document nor a Consitution; but simply an accounting of the reasons why the subscribing colonies decided to separate from Great Britain.

Further, the phrase itself is very misunderstood in its meaning and thus abused by romantics and idealists.

Read it, please.

While all men may be 'created' equal, there is no endorsement of the notion that all men remain 'equal' at all stages and through all progessions of their lives.

Some men commit murders, some become Martin Luther Kings.

No 'equality' there.

[elganned]

All perfectly true, Rideron--and totally irrelevent.

We are a nation of laws, based on principles. One of those principles is that we aspire to be better than the thugs and pisspots who run much of the rest of the world. To that end we have established procedures which we believe conform to a more humane and just conception of the world.

Guantanamo has been a shamful, fear-based departure from those ideals and aspirations. Time to shut it down.

[ccbatson]

Elganned...close, but missing the vital piece...Individual liberty via property rights.

[d.mcc]

Elganned...close, but missing the vital piece...Individual liberty via property rights.

...........