[Publius6961]

Dawg I have a more basic way to look at the conundrum.
Innocent until proven guilty is one of the "undisputed" basic rights of individuals.
King George was an individual. He was not tried and found guilty before separating the "ties that bind one people to another". How can that be?

Might it be because the rights being defined by the new Constitution were explicitly reserved for its new citizens?

Obviously somewhere along the line the principle that the constitution protects citizen and foreigner alike was probably embraced by the court system and we have accepted it ever since as inviolate.

It certainly seems overdue to revisit the subject, either through the courts or by Constitutional Amendment.

[RebelDawg]

Thank you Publius,

I have not checked back on the thread since around lunch time an dwas just reading soem of the latest responses. Your posts were very inciteful and helpful. Many others had good posts (Sorry I didn't keep a list but thanks to all who have replied so far).

I spoke with a good friend of mine about this over lunch. He is Australian and here on a work visa. Originally he said that he thought that he was afforded all the protections in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He said that if I was in Australia that the same would be true. The US Constitution would not protect me but the Australian one would. His opinion was that everyone in the country was as well. When I asked about Illegal immigrants he started to waiver and in the end he said that he didn't really have an answer.

I have heard very good arguments on both sides in this thread but I have not yet been swayed.

One other related question: There was a lawyer on Fox news a while back who said that he "might" defend Bin Laden if brought to trial here and he stated that Bin Laden had the "right" to a fair trial. My question is, why would someone who is from another country, who attacks our country (maybe never even having been here himself during the attacks but nevertheless being responsible for them) Why would such an individual be protected by our Bill of Rights? I really don't get this statement that this lawyer was making. Did anyone see this? It was a week or two ago now.