[general_re]

Now, can you or anyone else cite any legal authority for the starling and provocative assertion that the Bill of Rights does only applies to citizens?

I can - sort of. SCOTUS in US v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990), pretty clearly states that extraterritorial aliens are not generally entitled to the protections of the Constitution. On the other hand, SCOTUS has also repeatedly ruled that resident aliens are entitled to many constitutional protections, particularly those afforded by the 4'th, 5'th, and 14'th amendments (see, e.g., INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984)).

Now, this is obviously not the same as making the blanket statement that non-citizens have no rights and are not entitled to the protections of the Constitution.

So, my question to you, and to everyone, is - would everyone be more comfortable if the Bush Executive Order explicitly stated that tribunals applied only to non-resident non-citizens (e.g., aliens outside the territories and protectorates of the United States)?

Personally, I'd be a lot more comfortable with it. Am I alone here?

[Iwo Jima]

"would everyone be more comfortable if the Bush Executive Order explicitly stated that tribunals applied only to non-resident non-citizens (e.g., aliens outside the territories and protectorates of the United States)?"

That would change everything for me. There would be few if any Constitutional problems that I can see. But then I would argue that it was unwise and unnecessary.

If you find a belligerant engaged in an act of war, just shoot him. If you can't kill him (because he surrenders while the CNN cameras are on, etc.), but you know that he has engaged in war crimes of such a magnitude that he must be tried for violations of the law of war, then I guess that you try him along with all others similarly situated in a Nuremburg-style tribunal. But we ought to try our best to keep those trials to a minimum.

Oh, I have a word to say about that special case of the American citizen who went to Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban and has now been captured. TREASON! Bring him home and have a very public trial observing all Constitutional safeguards and then hang him.

We need to send a very clear message to all those people who were born here and enjoyed the blessings of citizenship for all of their lives but who hate us and just can't wait to fight on the sides of our enemies in times of war. That's treason, and you will be tried and hanged.

[Iwo Jima]

"US v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990), pretty clearly states that extraterritorial aliens are not generally entitled to the protections of the Constitution."

Your reference to "extraterritorial aliens" made me LOL! I keep thinking "ET -- phone home."

Verdugo-Urquidez, as I recall, involved a search which wouldn't pass muster under the 4th Amendment of a Mexican citizen in Mexico either by the U.S government (DEA?) or by the Mexican government at the urging of the U.S. government. Somehow or other, the DEA got him to this country and proceeded to prosecute him, using the fruits of the illegal search in Mexico. The SCOTUS did a pretty thorough review of how the Bill of Rights applies to various people under a variety of circumstances before concluding that the 4th Amendment didn't apply to the facts of that case. I don't think that I have a problem with that ruling.

My main point is this: it is patently wrong to say that the Bill of Rights only applies to citizens. However, it is too broad a statement to say that the Bill of Rights does apply to non-citizens. Most of the time it does, but the Supreme Court has identified some rather narrow circumstances in which it does not. Most of these rulings seem to be to be well-reasoned, and I cannot think of a single case which held that a particular amendment did not apply to a particular non-citizen for a particular reason with which I had serious disagreement.

[exodus]

*******************

To: Iwo Jima; All
"...So, my question to you, and to everyone, is - would everyone be more comfortable if the Bush Executive Order explicitly stated that tribunals applied only to non-resident non-citizens (e.g., aliens outside the territories and protectorates of the United States)?..."
# 144 by general_re
************

A military tribunal (trial) is only justified during time of war or national emergency.
What we have doesn't qualifies on either count.

[Texasforever]

So, my question to you, and to everyone, is - would everyone be more comfortable if the Bush Executive Order explicitly stated that tribunals applied only to non-resident non-citizens(e.g., aliens outside the territories and protectorates of the United States)?

Actually the EO does state that:

Sec. 2. Definition and Policy.

(a) The term "individual subject to this order" shall mean any individual who is not a United States citizen with respect to whom I determine from time to time in writing that:

(1) there is reason to believe that such individual, at the relevant times,

(i) is or was a member of the organization known as al Qaida;

(ii) has engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit, acts of international terrorism, or acts in preparation therefor, that have caused, threaten to cause, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy; or (iii) has knowingly harbored one or more individuals described in subparagraphs (i) or (ii) of subsection 2(a)(1) of this order; and

(2) it is in the interest of the United States that such individual be subject to this order.