Should the US Constitution cover those not in the US also

Hello, so first off, this thread is meant for consideration by all, but I am discussing the US Constitution.
What I mean is that, should those of us in the US consider anyone on earth covered within our (seemingly reasonable) set of principles for this country whenever they are visiting here, or are in say, a war and captured by us and under our authority?

I am asking this because there is often a argument that POWs are not citizens, therefore have no right to a speedy trial, no common rights as inherent by the constitution for citizens. (Gitmo)

Thoughts on the matter?

_____
My thoughts:
The constitution is not a set of rules for people born in this specific government, but rather, it is an ideal and set of principles that we should naturally inherently consider is a right of all humankind...but especially any whom we can directly influence..so yes...a foreigner who is caught by us, or a visitor, should be able to site the constitution and it be fully applicable.
Mostly because I think it is, for the most part, a sensible set of principle based rules and regulations.

(I also realize it is not a supernaturally perfect document written by demigods..it is a endless work in progress, like many works before it, and other works after it globally.)

i argued this with all the war hawks back in 2005.

"Inalienable" or "God given" (whichever vernacular you choose) seems pretty clear. Our constitution does not grant rights. Our constitution guarantees them by stifling government.

when you have that perspective, then it becomes clear: inalienable is meant as it reads.

There is a good article at GEORGETOWN LAW FACULTY that discuses this very question, it is a PDF and can be downloaded here:

Are Foreign Nationals Entitled to the Same Constitutional Rights As Citizens?

I'll agree with you as in these rights are innate. If I don't want you to take my gun I can make you take it off my corpse, and if I wanna say something you don't like you won't have a choice. The application via constitution is that our government cannot seize our guns, detain all those who go to church, Ect. But these rules apply to us, the citizens our leaders work for. I don't believe we can force our government to let a foreign national hold an assault rifle on our turf or let a group of Russian citizens protest outside the Capitol building over the sanctions imposed in Russia. That being said there are basic human rights which must be adhered to as a social contract with all humans of the world. If we have a reputation for torturing every pow we hold, how will others treat our captures soldiers?

Yes, it always bothers me in an extreme way when the NSA (for instance) says that they won't spy on Americans, but will spy on foreign nationals all they want. What's to prevent the other countries from spying on US, and everyone spreading the info back and forth, subject to bribes and other unknown intrigue?

It's like some people are less human than others, and our government by saying this, shows exactly what they're thinking about all of us, except the elites with their rubber 'SECRET' stamps in hand, and unlimited funding.

We're all second class citizens in someone's eyes, and that's pretty scary. Hell, even the concept of 'citizen' is ridiculous. Are we not all on the same planet? Who the heck decided to draw imaginary lines on the globe?

I think POW's are a special class of people and it's been seen as so obvious an issue in that way, they have specific treaties to cover it.

I don't think it's ever been the tradition to extend the full domestic protections of a nation to the combatant enemy upon capture. It's often come that way following the end of hostilities, but not while the war is going on. After all, the whole basis of holding a POW at all is, at it's base, unconstitutional in a civilian context.

What is that basis? Think about it... Holding a combatant to the end of the war so they are out of the war and active threats to our side, during that war. So, they're being held for something they might do, or could do, or we project 'should do'...not what they HAVE done which is, on it's face, usually legal in the outlines of warfare also covered in treaties.

That's the mental pretzel I think it gets into if we start trying to mix the world of national defense as it's been from 2013 AD to 2013 BC and beyond..with the standards outside war and civilian society.

a reply to: SaturnFX

POW [ prisoner of war ] is a "protected class " with certain rights under the Geneva and hague conventions

but I happen to agree with the US stance that members of extra-national terrorist orgaisations do not deserve the status " POW "

and lastly - the US constitution does not wholley apply to bona-fide visitors to the US - so why should it apply to enemy combatants ?

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: SaturnFX

POW [ prisoner of war ] is a "protected class " with certain rights under the Geneva and hague conventions

but I happen to agree with the US stance that members of extra-national terrorist orgaisations do not deserve the status " POW "

and lastly - the US constitution does not wholley apply to bona-fide visitors to the US - so why should it apply to enemy combatants ?

Same reason it should apply to a full citizen that just committed a crime against a fellow countryman..because it should be a principle philosophy we agree to.

Lets say you follow a law here not to murder someone. You then go on a trip where murder is perfectly legal..do you then murder because you can, or are you still holding firm on a principle of evolved understanding that murdering others is wrong regardless of where you are?

originally posted by: MinangATS
There is a good article at GEORGETOWN LAW FACULTY that discuses this very question, it is a PDF and can be downloaded here:

Are Foreign Nationals Entitled to the Same Constitutional Rights As Citizens?

Oh, I wasn't asking in a legal frame, I was asking in a philosophical reference...not can they, or are they, but should they...

My parents raised me as a citizen of the world who had the great fortune to be born in the USA. That Manifest Destiny was not just a flow of human development that ended with me and mine, but rather was the nature of human development around the world. Those of us born in the US had a responsibility to not just protect ourselves but to live our lives so that these human rights as elucidated by the Constitution could be emulated by others and given time, spread across the world and give guidance to everyone, everywhere.

No, thank you. I like our constitution better. It has less weapons in it..

a reply to: ManFromEurope

Perhaps a more relaxed attitude towards weapons would help Europe keeping fascists and dictators from taking over periodically?

a reply to: SaturnFX

How far does the Constitution go?

What are the limits to the 1st Amendment?

Can a foreign nation use the 1st Amendment to subvert the Constitution?

Are you referring to any specific POW/EPW or are you referring to the unlawful combatant jihadis in Guantanamo?

During the five years of Bergdahl’s imprisonment, despite discussing his case in several public briefings, State Department and Defense Department officials made sure not to refer to Bergdahl as a “prisoner of war.” The reason, according to a senior administration official at the time, was that U.S. policy dictated that the rules of treatment for “prisoners of war” under the Geneva Convention did not apply to the conflict with al Qaeda and the Taliban. There was concern that if the U.S. called Bergdahl a “prisoner of war,” the Taliban would say its soldiers in U.S. custody were “prisoners of war,” as well, and would demand Geneva protections.

www.thedailybeast.com...

originally posted by: SaturnFX
Hello, so first off, this thread is meant for consideration by all, but I am discussing the US Constitution.
What I mean is that, should those of us in the US consider anyone on earth covered within our (seemingly reasonable) set of principles for this country whenever they are visiting here, or are in say, a war and captured by us and under our authority?

I am asking this because there is often a argument that POWs are not citizens, therefore have no right to a speedy trial, no common rights as inherent by the constitution for citizens. (Gitmo)

Thoughts on the matter?

_____
My thoughts:
The constitution is not a set of rules for people born in this specific government, but rather, it is an ideal and set of principles that we should naturally inherently consider is a right of all humankind...but especially any whom we can directly influence..so yes...a foreigner who is caught by us, or a visitor, should be able to site the constitution and it be fully applicable.
Mostly because I think it is, for the most part, a sensible set of principle based rules and regulations.

(I also realize it is not a supernaturally perfect document written by demigods..it is a endless work in progress, like many works before it, and other works after it globally.)

Genneraly no.

BUT

Unless your on US soil and ones life and liberty are at stake.

To clarify if in the UK a US commits a crime and he is arrested he will be givin the same legal rights as a uk citizen.

I think there are certain fudemental rights that a so called "free" socity should garentee.

Go back too 1776 your ancestors were pissed that britain did not afford Americans the same rights as a English citizen, even though you were croen subjects you were not english but you demanded the same rights (representation to name one), and called that tyranny.

Well right now your basicly inflicting the same tyranny george III inflicted on your ancestors.

a reply to: SaturnFX

O and too add the dentanees in the war on terror are not POW.

Us invented its own and in my opinion illegal term. Enemy combatent.

Either they are normal criminals to be tried and sentanced or a POW you can hold till the war is over.

The fact the US invented its own terms seems pretty shaddy to me.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: SaturnFX

POW [ prisoner of war ] is a "protected class " with certain rights under the Geneva and hague conventions

but I happen to agree with the US stance that members of extra-national terrorist orgaisations do not deserve the status " POW "

and lastly - the US constitution does not wholley apply to bona-fide visitors to the US - so why should it apply to enemy combatants ?

And who is the USA to decide what rights or status one is?

You are either a criminal or POW.

The US has NO right to invent its own term.

Your basicaly inflicting tyranny on foreign nations.

How can you preach freedom to the world when your inflicting tyrany at the same time?

a reply to: crazyewok

Even more, what does the term "inalienable" mean if we are to start inventing "classes" of people to parse out rights to?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: ManFromEurope

Perhaps a more relaxed attitude towards weapons would help Europe keeping fascists and dictators from taking over periodically?

Nice try but our most relaxed gun laws were when facists were preodicaly takeing over.

Sorry but guns do not stop tyranny, its the will of the people. History shows that if the people are willing then guns will find a way in. Its never the legal guns that get used.

And case in point now the USA is rapidly turning into a tyranical police state ands the majority of people wont lift a finger even though the civilian populations better armed than some countrys!

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: SaturnFX

How far does the Constitution go?

What are the limits to the 1st Amendment?

Can a foreign nation use the 1st Amendment to subvert the Constitution?

Not sure if thats possible.

Only the US congress can change the constitution.

A foreigner can rant and rave all he/she wants but its still the voteing us citizens and its congress that only have that power.