Posted on 08/13/2002 9:40:24 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez
Are you asking "is that the law" or "is that what the law should be?"
No, he has some rights. We can't just kill him.
That protection may not come from a 5th Amendment right to life though. It might come from the Geneva Convention.
However, I do know, that if a French terrorist 'of Moroccan descent", like Zacharias Moussoui living in Minnesota has a computer, that the FBI considers worthy of searching, they can search it without a warrant. He therefore has no 4th Amendment rights. Therefore, BARR IS WRONG.
The delay caused by that judge who did not grant permission to search ZM's computer could have caused many Americans to lose their right to life and property in New York city. The FBI should have just gone ahead and searched it, instead of being so afraid of the ACLU that they asked a judge - a liberal judge - even though they didn't have to.
And why you're so hung up on granting foreigners 4th Amendment rights, I will never understand.
Go get 'em, Luis!
You are not being ruled a foreign occupation army, and Henry David Thoreau did not write a pamplet entitled "Civil Insurrection." If you ascribe to the Claire Wolfe's neo-Leninist dictum then you have no good business here on FR.
Our founding fathers drafted our Constitution just before the state triumphed. Its language and the wording of the Bill of Rights belong to an earlier era. If Thomas Jefferson and his committee were writing the Declaration of Independence during these gender-neutral times they would have undoubtedly substituted "persons" for "Men" in their most memorable sentence, "all Men were created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." However, Jefferson was not equating "men" with "citizens." The founding fathers did not conceive of rights only in territorial terms as we do today. Jefferson would be shocked if he were told that we now consider his "Men" as being only citizens or legal residents of the United States. There were no citizens of the United States of America on July 4, 1776, only persons residing in a new land. When the United States was established, many persons had no wish to become its citizens. Loyalists, Indians, French, Spaniards, African Americans, and women were included in a territorial state that took two centuries to grant all of them their full legal rights as "persons."The word "citizen" is not even used in the "Bill of Rights." "Persons" have these rights. The matter is not simply semantic. In law words are important; in human rights they are crucial. The fifth amendment decrees that no "person" shall be convicted without presentment or indictment in times of peace and that no "person" shall be subject to double jeopardy. This language reflects earlier jurisprudence when the right of due process was not restricted to citizens. The French jurist who coined the maxim, "Innocent until proven guilty," would be puzzled that today we embrace the maxim but find reasons to violate it. For him, it meant "no one, absolutely no one can be denied a trial under any circumstances. And that everyone, absolutely everyone, had the right to conduct a vigorous, thorough defense." Following this logic to its inexorable conclusion, these jurists even argued that if the devil himself were to be judged, he must be granted all the rights of due process.
If we take rights seriously, we may see that the equivocal language of our Constitution furnishes a vehicle and a formidable legal argument for recognizing the rights of all persons, even illegal immigrants, terrorists, and other enemies of the state. In our most recent confrontation with the issue, politicians who had turned their backs on Haitians, Cubans, Mexicans and others whom the INS had routinely deprived of their rights of due process have suddenly discovered religion in the person of a six year old boy. I hope these politicians continue to embrace due process for all persons in the future. After all, when we take the rights of any human beings away, we undermine the absolute guarantee of all of our rights for each of us.
http://www.spinninglobe.net/dueprocess.html
Yes she does Fred, and I'm the head of it.
"The founding fathers did not conceive of rights only in territorial terms as we do today. Jefferson would be shocked if he were told that we now consider his "Men" as being only citizens or legal residents of the United States. There were no citizens of the United States of America on July 4, 1776, only persons residing in a new land."
Bears repeating.
BLUSH .........
For they are crunchy and good with ketchup.
Unless my opinion happens to be true, in which case it's a fact.
Are governments instituted among men to protect their rights, or everyone's rights?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.