Orwellian NPR

[Arkady]

Already read it. Answer the question.

It's clearly spelled out in the case. I even quoted the holding and pointed you to the pages that deal with extra-territoriality. If you're still unable to see it, I'm not sure what I can do to bring your mind up to speed.

 

[Colorforms]

It's clearly spelled out in the case. I even quoted the holding and pointed you to the pages that deal with extra-territoriality. If you're still unable to see it, I'm not sure what I can do to bring your mind up to speed.

You claimed that the court was affirming the constitution. You haven't even come close.

Maybe you should look up "imbecile". I doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

 

[Arkady]

You claimed that the court was affirming the constitution. You haven't even come close.

Maybe you should look up "imbecile". I doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

Yes, as the case indicated, the court was affirming the Constitution.

 

[Colorforms]

Yes, as the case indicated, the court was affirming the Constitution.

Who's constitution? Which article? What in the constitution extends protections to terrorists? And which section of the constitution states that interrogation of terrorists need to cause no physical or mental discomfort?

 

[Arkady]

Who's constitution? Which article? What in the constitution extends protections to terrorists? And which section of the constitution states that interrogation of terrorists need to cause no physical or mental discomfort?

There doesn't have to be wording in the Constitution that says it applies to terrorists any more that there has to be wording that says it applies to drug dealers or jaywalkers... or Republicans, for that matter. The fifth amendment says:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The relevant language here is "... nor shall any person... be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Locking up a person without due process of law and using torture to compel him to provide evidence against himself is a violation of the Constitution. There's also the eighth amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. It doesn't say "no cruel and unusual punishment of non-terrorists." It's a sweeping prohibition. Section 9 of the Constitution contains the protection of the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Again, it mentions no exception for terrorists. The Founders would have well understood that an exception for terrorists would be the exception that swallowed the rule, since the state could then simply claim anyone was a terrorist, to void the Privilege with regard to such person. Considering many of the Founders, themselves, could easily have been labeled terrorists for their activities leading up to the Revolution, they would have been well aware of what it would mean if a Constitution didn't apply with regard to those the State chooses to label terrorists.

 

[Colorforms]

There doesn't have to be wording in the Constitution that says it applies to terrorists any more that there has to be wording that says it applies to drug dealers or jaywalkers... or Republicans, for that matter. The fifth amendment says:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The relevant language here is "... nor shall any person... be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Locking up a person without due process of law and using torture to compel him to provide evidence against himself is a violation of the Constitution. There's also the eighth amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. It doesn't say "no cruel and unusual punishment of non-terrorists." It's a sweeping prohibition. Section 9 of the Constitution contains the protection of the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Again, it mentions no exception for terrorists. The Founders would have well understood that an exception for terrorists would be the exception that swallowed the rule, since the state could then simply claim anyone was a terrorist, to void the Privilege with regard to such person. Considering many of the Founders, themselves, could easily have been labeled terrorists for their activities leading up to the Revolution, they would have been well aware of what it would mean if a Constitution didn't apply with regard to those the State chooses to label terrorists.

"Except in cases of land or naval forces"

 

[Arkady]

"Except in cases of land or naval forces"

That clause applies to the first part, not the rest. The relevant material here is the stuff after the semi-colon.

 

[Colorforms]

That clause applies to the first part, not the rest. The relevant material here is the stuff after the semi-colon.

In rebttal, I thought this was interesting:

The issue of when persons on U.S. territory could be tried by military courts was tested in the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942),[10] which upheld military prosecution of seven Germans who had entered U.S. territory covertly, six of whom were executed. At the time there was a congressionally declared state of war with Germany, defining them as "enemies". However, the Supreme Court took the case on a writ of habeas corpus, which established that such persons do at least have that due process right if the offense occurred on U.S. territory. Otherwise there would be no protection against such a military tribunal prosecuting U.S. citizens or "friendly" aliens.

The issue of extended detention of persons of foreign descent was decided in Korematsu v. U.S., 323 U.S. 214 (1944), which affirmed the conviction of a Japanese-American citizen who resisted detention, although he was later found not guilty at the district court level. This case is now generally considered an embarrassment for U.S. case law, although it has not been overturned.Criminal prosecution in civilian courts of persons who committed offenses against the U.S. from outside U.S. territorial limits would be unconstitutional, despite several cases that claim extra-territorial criminal jurisdiction. They would also be extremely difficult to prove.

U.S. v. Burr, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 469 (1807)[11] established that the location of a criminal offense is where the offender was at the time of the offense, not where the effects of the offense occur. The Constitution limits criminal jurisdiction to a court in the state and district where the offense was committed.

U.S. v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32 (1812)[12] established that persons may only be criminally prosecuted under statutes in effect on the territory where the offense was committed, which excludes offenses committed outside U.S. territorial limits.

When the offenders are not acting for a foreign state, a declaration of war is not applicable. That leaves only military action under letters of marque and reprisal as a constitutional remedy.[13]The full constitutional due process protections apply on U.S. territory to citizens and legal residents or visitors, provided they did not gain legal entry by fraud. That does not mean such foreigners don't have full rights of life, liberty, and property, but due process may be truncated, provided authority for doing so is conferred by Congress, by either a declaration of war or letters of marque and reprisal. That authority is needed for such actions as trial of prisoners by a military tribunal, or putting bounties on the heads of suspects. In the absence of such authority, only defensive actions may be taken, without violating the law, represented by 18 USC 2441, which applies to everyone involved, including the president.

http://www.constitution.org/col/foreign_rights.htm