Constitution Doesn't Protect Foreign Terrorist

In regard to Gitmo, overseas torture prisons, etc.? No it doesn't, but the Founders opposed foreign adventuring and military empire. As for torture and abuse of human rights overseas, the primary issue is that our federal government is run by corrupt Fascist scum. It doesn't have to be a constitutional issue.

In the case of Jose Padilla, a US citizen, the Bush administration subjected him to abuses of civil liberties as well without due process of Law. In the case of the FISA spy scandal issue, that was a clear-cut and impeachable violation of the law as well.

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States

words "people" and "person" rather than referring to a legal relationship between an individual and a government, as in the word: "citizen". For instance, it says "We the People"; not "We the Citizens". The 1st Amendment speaks of the "right of the people" peaceably to assemble , as does the fourth Amendment when it speaks of the "right of the people" to, basically, be left alone. The Fifth amendment says that "No person shall".....be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....

Does the Constitution "say what it means" and "mean what it says"?

"Foreign Terrorist" is a label and a charge that requires proof in an unbiased judicial forum.

One might take the position that, although the Constitution may use the word "people" or "person", it was really meant to be "interpreted" as meaning "citizen" in those instances. It was just an oversight on the part of those individuals who drafted it. However, to take that position is to join the side which holds that the Constitution is a "living document", free of the boundaries that may appear to have been established by those who drafted it; that, in fact, the Constitution must be interpreted in relationship to the times in which we live. The result of that position, which we have been living to this day, is that the so-called "living document" is actually a "dead document", in that it can no longer be relied upon to provide restraints on a government which decides to do whatever it pleases, bound only by the fluid opinions of 5 or more fallible political appointees sitting on the Supreme Court.

IMissLiberty's point, regarding the source of our rights as individuals, is really key to the argument, IMHO. As IMissLiberty points out (and I fully agree with the assertion) our rights as individuals do not come to us as a grant from some government. We have them as a result of our existence as human beings and they existed long antecedent to the organization of the government.

Best regards.

The Constitution prohibits government violating the rights of the People. All people, everywhere in the world have unalienable rights.

When the people of this country claimed our unalienable rights, we did so based on the claim that these are given to us by "our Creator." We did not grant the priveledge of violating anyone's rights to the government, although, of course, they have the priveledge and responsibility to arrest those who violate our rights.

Citizenship is only mentioned in a couple of places having to do with voting and qualifications for the office of president, for example. Most places, all the rights it protects apply to all people.

IMissLiberty

why be a hypocrite? Advocating the right to trial and humane treatment during detainment for yourself and not some1 else based upon their spot on the globe seems contradictory to me. I do not fear death, I fear life without liberty.

The US Constitution DOES NOT GRANT ANYONE THEIR RIGHTS.

Our rights are granted to us by our Creator. Our Constitution was crafted to restrain our government and provide & ensure us the PROTECTION of our rights.

I'd tell him to get it straight.

Neither the Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights, protects individuals or grants rights. The Constitution is an instrument of Sovereign States, and grants specific privileges and functions to a federal structure but otherwise erects broad prohibitions to government power.

Rights are not GRANTED to either citizens or foreign defendants. Defendants are protected from government abuse, whether they are rousted from their homes or captured on the battle field. Once a defendant is safely captured, we, as a civilized order, can afford the luxuries of habeas corpus and due process. If we are defendants ourselves we would likely look upon such protections not as luxuries but as vital tools for preserving our lives and liberties against unjust abuse.

Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Professor Bernardo de la Paz

anyone who is on our soil LEGALLY. One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter". Nelson Mandela was once called a "terrorist," as were many patriots during the Revolutionary War. Let's look at the definition of the root word, "terror".

1: a state of intense fear
2 a: one that inspires fear : scourge b: a frightening aspect c: a cause of anxiety : worry d: an appalling person or thing; especially : brat
3: reign of terror
4: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands

By this definition, our executive branch, armed forces and groups such as the IRS could be called "terrorists". Let the justice system, using the Constitution, determine who is and who is not a "terrorist".

bump

please