To: exodus
Kinda. Now having read the whole thread, I understand that the Supremes have ruled that certain Constitutional rights apply to non-citizens. One might conclude that those 'applicable' rights are identical with "human" rights...
Howsomever, such rights do NOT apply in whole to those who have committed acts of war against the USA--and I might argue that an act of war is an act of war, regardless if Congress declares the war.
Thus, the case of the Germans who submarined themselves to our shores for the purpose of raising hell and killing people would apply. Summary military justice, right now.
# 211 by ninenot
************
The Germans came into our country in time of war. We had already declared war on Germany and Japan the year before. Even so, the German men were able to fight being assigned trials in the military courts. They fought it out in civilian courts, in wartime. There case went all the way to the Supreme Court, who ruled that, as spies and saboteurs in time of war, they actually could be tried by the military court system.
I would point out, ninenot, that if spies and saboteurs captured in wartime were accepted as having the right to challenge the court system, they legally, according to our courts, have all other rights as well.
"All other rights"?
A resident of the United States in 1943 had a perfect right to walk the streets of America in wing-tip shoes, a business suit and a fedora.
If the German saboteurs had worn Kriegsmarine uniforms, they would have spent the rest of the war in P.O.W. camps and probably would have been given a grudging amount of respect for their daring by the American newspapers.
For exercising the right of any American resident to dress as he pleases, they were executed.
When you are a combatant, your "rights" are not the same as "all the other rights" of the residents of the country you are at war with.
That does not follow logically. They were trying to claim that they had other rights, and were denied.