Dana may want to review the “Patriot” and “Military Commissions” Acts. Written, pushed, and passed, by Republicans, with threats of “treason” launched against any Democrat who spoke against those acts.
It’s almost a credible argument when the US citizen is a faceless, nameless person. Dana should have provided an actual accused terrorist that is a US citizen for a fair comparison but, that would lead to examining what the person has done…
@wraitkincome on, it’s inflamatory. it doesn’t matter if he was an american citizen or not. he made war against the us from and on foreign soil. constitutional rights apply where the constitution applies, not on foreign soil.what about the hundreds of thousands of innocents killed by the usa as ‘collateral damage’? they have constitutional rights too?
@Dr Canuckit depends on the frame of the discussion. are we talking idealist, are we talking pragmatic, are we talking legally or are we talking about how it really works
with respect to rights, there are inalienable rights that come from our creator (they are birthright passed down from our parents, NOT the great spaghetti monster in the sky), there are defined rights, like the right to bear arms which seem to be granted by SOME governments.
There is a specific difference between rights GRANTED by governments and rights NOT TAKEN by governments. For example, george bush took away inalienable rights with his patriot act – such as the right to peacably assemble. The supremes took away the inalienable right to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater that is not on fire.
and finally let’s remember the USA is an experiment in inalienable rights. other countries that HAVE a sovereign, like amsterdam and england (and i believe canada) derive their social contract and legitimacy from the devine rights of kings, and therefore all of the rights of the people are granted by those governments.
so as i said, the constitution only extends and was only intended to extend within the territories of the USA. People outside our borders DO NOT HAVE constitutional rights.
If the US Constitution doesn’t apply to those citizens outside the US, why do people born of US citizens outside of the US still enjoy US Citizenship? Your logic is flawed.The Constitution applies to all of America’s Citizens, regardless of their location. Jurisdictional laws may apply to the host country (i.e. committing a crime in Japan nets you a punishment under Japanese law), but we as a nation cannot bypass the Constitution just because people’s feet aren’t inside our borders. Americans are Americans, regardless of their physical location. Otherwise, as soon as troops left our soil they would no longer be protected by the Constitution or subject to the UCMJ, which they are.
@omQRok i should have said US Constitutional rights. The social contract in monarchies did not originate from their constitutions.Wraithkin just because a person is a US citizen does not give them US constitutional rights when they are abroad, nor does their being abroad somehow cancel their citizenship. They are separate issues as is the UCMJ.
Dtroutma about 11 years ago
Dana may want to review the “Patriot” and “Military Commissions” Acts. Written, pushed, and passed, by Republicans, with threats of “treason” launched against any Democrat who spoke against those acts.
pirate227 about 11 years ago
It’s almost a credible argument when the US citizen is a faceless, nameless person. Dana should have provided an actual accused terrorist that is a US citizen for a fair comparison but, that would lead to examining what the person has done…
dannysixpack about 11 years ago
@wraitkincome on, it’s inflamatory. it doesn’t matter if he was an american citizen or not. he made war against the us from and on foreign soil. constitutional rights apply where the constitution applies, not on foreign soil.what about the hundreds of thousands of innocents killed by the usa as ‘collateral damage’? they have constitutional rights too?
dannysixpack about 11 years ago
^the US constitution does not apply to people outside its jurisdiction.
dannysixpack about 11 years ago
@Dr Canuckit depends on the frame of the discussion. are we talking idealist, are we talking pragmatic, are we talking legally or are we talking about how it really works
with respect to rights, there are inalienable rights that come from our creator (they are birthright passed down from our parents, NOT the great spaghetti monster in the sky), there are defined rights, like the right to bear arms which seem to be granted by SOME governments.
There is a specific difference between rights GRANTED by governments and rights NOT TAKEN by governments. For example, george bush took away inalienable rights with his patriot act – such as the right to peacably assemble. The supremes took away the inalienable right to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater that is not on fire.
and finally let’s remember the USA is an experiment in inalienable rights. other countries that HAVE a sovereign, like amsterdam and england (and i believe canada) derive their social contract and legitimacy from the devine rights of kings, and therefore all of the rights of the people are granted by those governments.
so as i said, the constitution only extends and was only intended to extend within the territories of the USA. People outside our borders DO NOT HAVE constitutional rights.
Wraithkin about 11 years ago
If the US Constitution doesn’t apply to those citizens outside the US, why do people born of US citizens outside of the US still enjoy US Citizenship? Your logic is flawed.The Constitution applies to all of America’s Citizens, regardless of their location. Jurisdictional laws may apply to the host country (i.e. committing a crime in Japan nets you a punishment under Japanese law), but we as a nation cannot bypass the Constitution just because people’s feet aren’t inside our borders. Americans are Americans, regardless of their physical location. Otherwise, as soon as troops left our soil they would no longer be protected by the Constitution or subject to the UCMJ, which they are.
dannysixpack about 11 years ago
@omQRok i should have said US Constitutional rights. The social contract in monarchies did not originate from their constitutions.Wraithkin just because a person is a US citizen does not give them US constitutional rights when they are abroad, nor does their being abroad somehow cancel their citizenship. They are separate issues as is the UCMJ.