General Categories > Laws and Legislation
S. 1867-National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 how much does anyone know?
Ronvandyn:
--- Quote from: rluening on December 07, 2011, 12:23:59 PM ---ScottC - the Bill of Rights doesn't actually apply to people - citizen or non citizen. It doesn't lay out which rights people "have", it just enumerates a list of rights that all humans have and on which the federal government will not infringe.
/rl
--- End quote ---
But does not have the power of law outside of the United States, its territories, or protectorates, human or otherwise. To apply US law to someone residing in another country and committing a crime there would be a violation of international law.
Ron
JTH:
So here is a question, then---is the Bill of Rights a set of inalienable rights that all people have, or just people that are "ours"?
Either they are inalienable human rights, or they aren't.
At what point in time do people give up those rights? According to settled law in the U.S., after they are convicted of a crime. We don't normally take away rights before that point.
So----is everyone equal in the eyes of the law? Or are some people covered by the law, and some aren't?
Think about this for a second----why is it that suddenly geographic location is the defining characteristic of whether or not you are a human that has rights?
Another way to think about it: Do we really want to allow the government to start making up their own definitions of which people are really "people"?
"Some are more equal than others."
Last I knew, our Declaration of Independence said "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
....but those things that we consider Rights only count if you are a United States citizen on U.S. soil?
Yes, I know there is a difference between law and philosophy. So my question here for legal purposes is still "Do we want the government to define who is a person for the purposes of seeing whether or not they have any rights?" and my question for philosophical purposes is this: "If you say that the 2nd amendment is a fundamental right, a right to self-defense, a right that everyone should have----is the end of that statement ...but only if you are a U.S. citizen?"
(Whether or not other countries DO accept that right is not the point. Whether you believe it is a fundamental human right IS the point. And the rest of the things that we consider rights go right along with it.)
This bill is about the U.S. not applying its own laws to how it deals with people. (And ignoring other people's laws, too, since we already do that.)
And this isn't about whether or not murdering scumbag trash get what they deserve--it is about whether or not WE really believe what we talk about when we say that people have rights. (I'm all for terrorists getting their heads blown off. This, however, is not the point.)
When you say "people have rights!" do you mean "because the Bill of Rights says so!" or do you mean "Because these are fundamental human rights!" ---because ONE of those cases can be changed because it is simply a law promulgated and enforced by a government, just like any other.
bkoenig:
Well said. A common misconception is that the BOR gives rights. It doesn't - the purpose was to recognize basic human rights that belong to all people. Yes, the Constitution does not have the force of law beyond U.S. territory, but if we turn a blind eye to those rights beyond our borders we are ignoring the intent of our founders.
As it reads now this bill does not allow for indefinite detention of Americans, but I think it's a slippery slope. JTH, if you don't mind I would like to use your thoughts on some other forums where I have discussed this.
CitizenClark:
--- Quote from: Ronvandyn on December 07, 2011, 06:21:04 PM ---But does not have the power of law outside of the United States, its territories, or protectorates, human or otherwise. To apply US law to someone residing in another country and committing a crime there would be a violation of international law.
Ron
--- End quote ---
Ron, the U.S. Constitution acts to restrain the federal government no matter where it is operating. It isn't a matter of applying US law to people in other countries. If the United States government does not have the authority to do a particular thing, that doesn't merely limit US government actions here in the territory of the United States. It limits them everywhere.
CitizenClark:
--- Quote from: bkoenig on December 09, 2011, 10:48:05 AM ---Well said. A common misconception is that the BOR gives rights. It doesn't - the purpose was to recognize basic human rights that belong to all people. Yes, the Constitution does not have the force of law beyond U.S. territory...
--- End quote ---
The United States Constitution has the force of law over the actions of the United States Government no matter where those actions are carried out. It isn't about recognizing the rights of people in other countries. It is about recognizing the fact that the federal government is designed to be one with limited, enumerated powers. Using taxpayer money for things outside these enumerated powers is a violation of our rights.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version