No, it's not "empty rhetoric to be ignored." It sets out the purpose of the Constitution.
The Constitution says nothing specific about anybody from Timbuktu just being on US Soil granting them some kind of magical protection. What in the Constitution is he using for his argument?
As I wrote before, the part the Constitution that has those protections is the 5th Amendment that applies to "persons" and the 6th Amendment that applies to "the accused." THAT'S the part of the Constitution he's using for his argument.
A more important question is, "What part of the Constitution are Bush and Ashcroft using to say that non-citizens can be tried in military courts?" The answer, as far as I know, is, "No part of the Constitution. What they propose violates the 5th and 6th amendments."
"If it applies to all "persons", why doesn't it apply to "persons" who are citizens of Columbia, in Columbia?"
Because the Constitution of the United States only applies in the United States. Not Columbia. They have their own laws.
Clearly, you've got to read more than just the Bill of Rights to figure out just WHO these rights are protecting. It's not that I'm neglecting those words, it's that I'm not considering them as if they were in a vacuum, since that is not possible to do.
Yes...so what part of the Constitution do you think over-rides or changes the language in the 5th and 6th Amendments? Bob Barr (apparently) doesn't see any language that over-rides or changes those protections. I can't see any language that does, either. On U.S. soil, "persons" are protected by the 5th Amendment, and "the accused" in a criminal trial is protected by the 6th amendment. Those protections are NOT just limited to citizens.
Thank goodness that some conservatives like Bob Barr (and Alan Keyes) can see that, and are willing to speak up.
If the preamble is not good enough for you or Barr, I guess Bob Barr doesn't understand that the US can ship non-citizens back to their own country in a heartbeat, thus denying them not only certain rights under the bill of rights, but ALL of them, any time we damn well please.
Must you disagree with William F. Buckley so stubbornly? Citizens have superior privileges over non-citizens. One of those privileges non-citizens don't have is to be protected by the bill of rights.