U.S. Court Rules Constitutional Rights Don’t Apply for Americans Overseas

page: 1
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   


In a shocking ruling, a Federal court in the District of Columbia has ruled against an ACLU lawsuit alleging Amir Meshal had his constitutional rights violated when being held by the FBI overseas. Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled in favor of the federal prosecution’s argument that any violations of constitutional rights within matters of so-called “national security,” are exempt from judicial reconciliation afterwards. Bluntly stated, if you are an American citizen the American government just declared that it only has to observe your constitutional rights while you’re on American soil.

U.S. Court Rules Constitutional Rights Don’t Apply for Americans Overseas

My disgust is rivaled, unfortunately, only by my lack of surprise. The slippery slope created in circumstances such as Mershal's could be used to eliminate fear of reprisal for government misconducts. Just about anything a defense attorney has to do now is cite this case.

Shameful.



+2 more 
posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 02:37 PM
link   
I don't know anything about this case , but I would assume an Americans rights would only be protected here in the USA I mean you can't go to another country expecting to have the same rights as American?


Am I missing something?


+1 more 
posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

I would assume the US government would respect a US citizens rights no matter what soil they are standing on.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: LightningStrikesHere
I don't know anything about this case , but I would assume an Americans rights would only be protected here in the USA I mean you can't go to another country expecting to have the same rights as American?


Am I missing something?



Rights as observed by American officials.

Basically this ruling states that US Officials can ignore US Constitutional rights of US citizens while overseas. Not just any official, obviously.

A hypothetical extension of this case would mean if a DEA agent chased a suspect over the Mexican border, he would then be free to withhold all constitutionally-mandated considerations like charges, lawyers, outside contact, reasonable conditions, etc...



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Theeastcoastwest

While I would understand a foreign government dealing with American citizens with the same rules which apply to other people in that country, I would also have thought that in order to have any legitimacy, agents of the US government should deal with its citizens as if they were on their home soil. The reason I say that, is that if they do not operate within the law of the land from which they come, they have no business operating against citizens of their nation at all, let alone anywhere else in the world.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Theeastcoastwest




Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled in favor of the federal prosecution’s argument that any violations of constitutional rights within matters of so-called “national security,” are exempt from judicial reconciliation afterwards.


I thought that "they" could always usurp your rights, as long as they cry "National Security".



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

Meshal claims to have been detained and mistreated by the FBI, which is an extension of the U.S. government. What is being proposed is should the FBI's treatment of Meshal, who is U.S. citizen, been in accordance with the U.S. constitution/law? This isn't the same as if the guy were being held by non-U.S. agencies, which in that case the argument would be silly.

I don't know how credible Amir Meshal's story is, but I feel the U.S. constitution should serve as a guide for how the U.S. gov needs to interact with its citizens, be that interaction be at home or abroad.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   
I agree that Americans "constitutional rights" are only exclusive of the US territory and jurisdiction.

If you are in a foreign country and get detained in that foreign country US constitutional rights do mean a darn thing, now once you return to the US you are entitle to them, only the US government declares you an enemy of the state, terrorist or traitor, then you have not rights, the patriot act made sure of that.

Is just common sense.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Elton
a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

I would assume the US government would respect a US citizens rights no matter what soil they are standing on.


Wait a second .... they respect the US citizens rights now in the US?

Gun laws, Press/speech, religion, peaceful protest. Not being respected.
Corporations having more rights then actual living human beings is not being respected.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   
I don't see anything in the ruling that says it only applies out of the country.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Theeastcoastwest

Then Bergdahl didn't have any rights?

And why do foreign nationals carry the same rights in the US?



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Theeastcoastwest

I don't get it. Why do you think that the constitutional rights of US citizens would apply overseas? You have a constitutional right to bear arms in your country, but that doesn't mean you have the same right in any other country. Why is this case any different? Or have I misunderstood? ( highly likely BTW)



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: benedictus
a reply to: Theeastcoastwest

I don't get it. Why do you think that the constitutional rights of US citizens would apply overseas? You have a constitutional right to bear arms in your country, but that doesn't mean you have the same right in any other country. Why is this case any different? Or have I misunderstood? ( highly likely BTW)


Yes you misunderstood.

A US citizen visiting some other country is bound by that countries laws of course.

However, if US officials in that country grab that US citizen and hold them in detention let us say at their (the US) embassy, without any formal charges, etc, then the US officials are technically violating the US citizen's rights.

Now, if that US citizen breaks a local law, then yes, it's a local mater, and his US constitutional rights mean diddly in that country.

However, what they are talking about is US officials acting against a US citizen, while they are in a foreign country.

I personally believe that US officials should treat a US citizen that is in another country, just as they would here in teh US......

But then, that means executing a US citizen by drone with no due process would be murder......right?




posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   
When I was in the army, we were always told that if we got in trouble off base that we were subject to the local laws of wherever we were, same applies to any other citizen breaking the law, look at Amanda Knox for example or anyone who's been busted for smuggling drugs.

Though from what I have read, this seems to be a case where the ACLU was suing because this gentleman was an American citizen being denied due process by federal agents under the "extraordinary rendition" program instituted by Bush. He was picked up in Kenya after fleeing Somalia and was shipped back and forth between 30 countries. Not sure where I stand on this because he wasn't picked up by locals and turned over to us, we went looking for him but I can't think of many legitimate reasons for an American to be hanging out in Somalia, particularly if they're on the lam and heading into Kenya.Neither country is a tourist destination unless you're looking for illicit contacts or false papers. The whole thing seems sketchy from both sides.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: LightningStrikesHere
I don't know anything about this case , but I would assume an Americans rights would only be protected here in the USA I mean you can't go to another country expecting to have the same rights as American?


Am I missing something?


Exatly.

Only exception I see is if the US government decides to do any extrajudicial killings on over sea Americans as the US government is not exempt from the constitution.

So

No a US citizen can not carry a M-16 in the UK

But yes a Us citizen should not be killed by his own government while overseas unless bearing arms with a hostile nation.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Theeastcoastwest

So this must mean all citizens of the USA? The president and congress travel out of the USA all the time.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Theeastcoastwest

The US govt. has the obligation to respect their citizen's rights on whatever soil they may be on. This is another logic defying ruling proving that this govt. is covertly and slowly creating a police state where the rules are whatever they say they are, and can change from one minute to the next. This is a govt of cognitive dissonance. I have no respect for the laws of this country anymore, not because I believe in anarchy or any other anti-gov't bs, but because I refuse to accept hypocrisy. If they aren't going to follow and administer their laws fairly, justly, equally and without prejudice why should I obey them? Why should anybody obey laws of a country which routinely violates the it's own laws.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   
I would hope that US citizens would be treated under the constitution by US officials anywhere. Not talking about breaking laws of another country and in their custody.

So the US government could take a US citizen out of the country and erase their rights...that's wrong.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer


And why do foreign nationals carry the same rights in the US?

Yes and no.

Its curtsy if LEGALLY there.

No not all constitutional rights should be granted to non US citizens but basic human rights should.

If a American is arrested and charged in the UK for murder you can expect him to get a lawyer and a trial by jury and be free from torture. And as a UK citizen id be pissed if my government abused a foreign national.

On the other hand in turn we expect UK citizens arrested in the US to be given the same considerations.

Of course voting rights and gun rights are things we don't expect.

Its the Christian principle of do on to others as you would yourself. things work a lot smoother and better if we all play fair, at least amongst allies.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Theeastcoastwest
And why do foreign nationals carry the same rights in the US?


for the same reason US nationals overseas have het rights defined by the country they are in.

US agents overseas have to obey the law of het country they are in - just like everyone else does - domestic law of their home country is irrelevant.

This is how it has been since the Treaty of Westphalia 1648 IIRC - of course there can be treaties that allow extra-territorial judicial coverage - infamously the "unequal treaties" between Western powers & china in the 19th century, and various bits of territory are defines as "domestic" wherever they are - embassies, warships.

But otherwise everyone is subject to the law of the country they are in - not the one they are from.

it's common sense - not conspiracy!





new topics
top topics
 
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join