Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus
No.
The Constitution does not have an exception for citizenship. If you commit a crime in the United States (9/11 happened here, not in Afghanistan), you have a right to a trial, regardless of your nationality. That is what the Constitution says. I suggest that you re-read your Bill of Rights.
Further, on 9/11/01, there was no declared war against al-Qaeda. Military action happened after that. Before you start talking about war as a context, you need to fix your timeline.
|
Lotus,
Typically your arguments are solid, and I don't really have a stance on Bin Laden either way, but I think you are off base on the exception for citizenship. The Pre-amble states:
Quote:
|
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
|
Here it is pretty definitive that the Constitution was and is designed to primarily to protect US citizens.
Now in Article 3 you might read :
Quote:
|
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
|
and use this as saying that it doesn't note citizenship, but Amendment 11, which changes an original part of Article 3 reads:
Quote:
|
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
|
So the Judicial powers do acknowledge the different citizenships of individuals.
Finally, you may solely be looking at Amendment 5:
Quote:
|
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
|
but the key here is that as an Amendment to the original Constitution, no state, or citizen of any state, could claim it's right without first acknowledging to be subject to the laws and rules laid down in the Constitution itself. I think it is fairly safe to say that Bin Laden did not acknowledge himself to be subject to the US Constitution, thus he could not seek the protection of the Amendments to that document.
(i am sure this can get argued in excess when it comes to illegal immigrants etc, but I am only speaking to whether a non-citizen not on US soil, nor making any claims to US citizenship and law could somehow claim that we must offer them the protection of our Bill of Rights, and the Constitution they amend)