Two things:
1.) The US Constitution only applies to American citizens.
2.) It’s hilarious when someone starts a reply with egotistical language (like “you assume a lot”) and then miss the most important fact in a scenario.
1.) The US Constitution only applies to American citizens.
2.) It’s hilarious when someone starts a reply with egotistical language (like “you assume a lot”) and then miss the most important fact in a scenario.
False.
In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, an 1898 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the term “person” under the Fifth Amendment applied to aliens living in the U.S. In Fong Yue Ting v. U.S.,the court held that Chinese laborers, “like all other aliens residing in the United States,” are entitled to protection of the laws.
"There's no dispute at the absolute core," said Andrew Kent, a constitutional scholar at Fordham Law. "If somebody is picked up by police they the have same Miranda and due process rights in all contexts except immigration law."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/01/30/does-th...
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/constitution-check-do-in...
(Please try ... at least a little harder, people.)
This article is about people who are US citizens abroad, or foreigners who came to USA or who are under the jurisdiction (imprisonment) of territory controlled by the USA government.
Non-resident non-citizen non-present people violating US national security (rightly or wrongly, that's per the government's judgment) don't have Constitutional rights.
This American habit of claiming global hegemony for American law is, on the whole, about equally fucking annoying whichever side it comes from: Yank law enforcement blithely assuming a right to arrest someone who's never set foot in America isn't really all that much worse than Yank liberals who leap to the conclusion that the only defense such victims have is the Holy Constitution.
If you're able to find any such, I might have further interest in this line of questioning. Though I doubt even that.
What possible reason could you have for that thought?
Precedent is that protections like that are created by treaties like the Geneva Convention.
In fact I’m not sure the constitution restricts any entity other than the government. It’s laws that restrict people. And laws apply to everyone, assuming jurisdiction can be established, or extradition will be enforced. I can’t murder someone in Japan just because I’m a non-citizen there. But I could break US law by doing something not-illegal in Russia, and they probably wouldn’t extradite me.
Which still doesn't establish that no Constitutional rights (that is, limitations on government action) apply to extraterritorial noncitizens.
But props all the same for a relevant citation rather than more smoke-blowing as others have been.
"in case there are two plausible interpretations of the text of a human rights treaty, one should favour that interpretation under which Auschwitz would be considered a human rights violation."
https://www.ejiltalk.org/foreign-surveillance-and-human-righ...
The second is that it is either pointless, or creates a mess of international affairs. It disregards national sovereignty, so either we're going to do something about it every time another nation encroaches on what we consider natural rights (probably meaning war), or we're not going to do anything about it in which case it was a pointless exercise.
Your text actually says "treaty" though, which implies an international context. It makes more sense in that context because national sovereignty still exists.