Those who claim that only U.S. citizens are entitled to due process are lying or ignorant - or both

[Empowerer]

The next time you hear anyone make this claim, PLEASE send them straight to the source - the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights - which guarantees Due Process to EVERYONE, not just to U.S. citizens.

Unfortunately, in these discussions, we keep getting so caught up in whether someone is or isn't an American citizen in order to determine whether they're entitled to Miranda warnings, trial by jury, and other elements of due process guaranteed by the Constitution. However, in fact, this is a strawman that is completely irrelevant to the discussion since these rights ARE NOT LIMITED TO AMERICAN CITIZENS.

The "let's not worry about a trial, we'll just string-em-up" crowd consistently lies about how the Constitution works and, sadly, the media are too lazy and/or ignorant to challenge them - probably because they haven't bothered to do even the most cursory research on the topic.

So here's some information - straight from the Bill of Rights - that I hope you will use whenever you are confronted with this spurious argument:

Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fifth Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for any 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 offence 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.

Sixth Amendment In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

[provis99]

1. you need to tell the former Bush administration, and the Supreme Court.

because they don't think things like habeus corpus and "rights" extend to non-citizens. And the NSA apparently thinks the Constitution doesn't exclude them from wiretapping any citizen they want, either.

[Empowerer]

3. The Constitution doesn't prohibit wiretapping - it prohibits such searches without due process

[Phx_Dem]

14. The Supreme Court ruled under Bush that anyone arrested in the U.S.

must be tried in the U.S. and given the same legal rights.

[Robb]

2. The preamble has been cited

...to support the argument that these rights are only conferred in the United States of America, e.g. not abroad. Similarly, it has been suggested that any later reference to "the people" means "the people of the United States of America."

I am also not a constitutional scholar. But I like to read. :shrug:

[Empowerer]

4. For a crowd that insists on strict interpretation, assuming "people" means "people of the USA" is a

pretty expansive (i.e., liberal) interpretation of the Constitution, wouldn't you say?

:-)

And since the draftes freely use the word "citizen" when they meant "citizen," only the most bizarre Constitutional analysis would assume that they meant "citizen" when they wrote "people."

[Robb]

5. Perhaps.

But even in the preamble they use "United States" before they clarify later in the same sentence "United States of America." Not that there were a lot of other United States at the moment, but, well, you know.

I tend to leave it to bigger brains, frankly.

[Empowerer]

7. Further evidence - the Fourteenth Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Fourteenth Amendment very clearly delineates between citizens and persons . . . It specifically protects the privileges and immunities of citizens and then in the next sentence guarantees "persons" due process and equal protection of the law. Without question, all persons - not just citizens - are entitled to equal protection and due process.

Many constitutional questions are murky and complex. This one is not. It is a plain as day and those who continue to pretend, despite the plain evidence to the contrary, that the Constitution only protects certain people are irresponsible at best.

[TexasObserver]

10. The Constitution's writers certainly understood words better than most.

The writing skills of the framers were exceptional. They used words they meant to use.

[OHdem10]

6. The Supreme Court intervened in those Military Courts.

Accused terrorists have rights.

[JoeyT]

8. Hell, we're well beyond that at this point.

Now we're arguing over whether even US citizens have any of those rights.
Unbelievably, an awful lot of people seem to think the answer should be "No."

[TexasObserver]

9. Recommend. Does anyone really believe arrested foreigners aren't Mirandized?

There are millions of foreigners in the US illegally, and there are tens of thousands of foreigners serving prison time in US prisons. They got there through the same criminal prosecution that got citizens there. They were Mirandized. They were prosecuted. They were convicted by a jury of their peers and sentenced under laws that were not ex post facto.

We do not have one set of criminal courts for aliens and another for citizens. They all go through the same process, and the aliens get deported after they've served their criminal sentences.

The problem with the GOP meme about not Mirandizing terror suspects is that Mirandizing happens immediately, long before citizenship can be resolved. Do we presume a foreigner doesn't also have US citizenship? What if they have dual citizenship, and what if that's something that doesn't come out immediately? Prosecution of such a person would be badly impeded if the person was not Mirandized on the presumption they were not citizens and therefore not entitled to such.

[Syntheto]

11. Sorry, but...

...yours is a new interpretation... in all of American history, there has never been a debate about this... the 'people', 'person', 'accused' are assumed to be taken as 'citizen'. Only with world-wide jurisdiction could your interpretation be implemented. If I'm wrong about this, please post some links.

Sure, John Adams defended those British soldiers after the so-called Boston 'Massacre', but Americans were English colonists then, in those pre-Revolutionary days, and subject to Crown laws.

The worst abuse I'm aware of is the treatment of American citizens of Japanese descent during WWII under the Roosevelt administration... They were actual American citizens treated like enemy combatants. How many of them benefited from the noble words and sentiments of the Constitution?

When Lincoln described a 'government of the people, by the people, for the people' he wasn't talking about enemy combatants, and I would venture that, at that time in American history, he wasn't even referring to the actual American citizens who had attempted a second revolution, and whose dead filled many mass graves on the Gettysburg battlefield. He certainly wasn't referring to Englishmen, Germans, Turks, Persians, Russians or any other nationality. He was talking about American citizens who abided the laws of the land.

This sudden questioning of a precept that hasn't been questioned since the Founding comes across as cherry-picking through the Constitution to back up a contemporary, flavor-of-the-month news blurb. I assume you're referring to the idiot who tried to blow up an airliner on Christmas Day (that will teach those Christians!).

[TexasObserver]

12. Foreigners are Mirandized when apprehended.

As I noted previously, we Mirandize all suspects arrested, whether they're citizens or not, and we abide by constitutional protections for foreigners in standard criminal prosecutions. They're prosecuted and afforded the same constitutional rights as citizens, including jury trial and the right to face their accusers. Your impression that foreigners are not afforded any protections under the constitution is incorrect.

It is true that in times of war, constitutional rights of foreigners and citizens can be restricted, but that's another issue entirely.

[CTLawGuy]

13. "He was talking about American citizens who abided the laws of the land."

wouldn't that nearly nullify the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments? I guarantee most of the people to whom those amendments might apply don't "abide by the laws of the land."

Or perhaps by "enemy combatants" they meant real enemy combatants, who are military agents of a state in an actual war with another state, not a ragtag band of religious nutjobs who are referred to as "enemy combatants" for political purposes by cynical right wingers.

[Empowerer]

15. My "interpretation" is hardly "new." It is well-settled Constitutional law

"Citizens" means "citizen" and "people," "persons," and "accused" mean just what they say, not ""only the people who are citizens," or "only those persons who are citizens," or "citizens who are accused."

When the Constitution says that all people or persons are entitled to due process of law and equal protection the law, it means all peopers had intended just citizens. If the framers had intended for these provisions to apply only to citizens, they would have simply said that rather than engage in the bizarre code language you suggest they employed.

Under your interpretation, a state could pass a law requiring any non-citizen accused of a stealing to have their hand chopped off or, for good measure, be lynched in the public square - since the only things that keep a state from imposing such punishments are the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

[ohiodemocratic]

16. That's correct. Both the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber were mirandize

and they are not US citizens.

Recommended.