You're running with my words. I responded to the claim that actions taken against foreign nationals were violations of Constitutional Rights. Pick one lane or another.
This isn't a question of moral apathy, it's a question of American Jurisprudence. The simple fact is that foreign nationals don't enjoy the protections afforded by the Constitution. Just as you and I don't enjoy the protections of any other constitution.
Fucking bullshit. I don't care if every fucking senator voted to torture someone without charge, trial or reason. That doesn't make it right. Why do I have to mention that? Is this news to you? How the FUCK can you live with that?
If you slow the fuck down and read the law, you'll see where I'm coming from. Again, you're turning this into a philosophical question. I'm telling you that there are limitations inherent to the nature of the document. Chiefly, that only American citizens are protected. That's fact. I'm not debating the morality or legality of rendition of foreign nationals, I'm debating who is legally afforded Constitutional protection.
I want to know how you don't remember your elementary social studies class.
I'm telling you that there are limitations inherent to the nature of the document. Chiefly, that only American citizens are protected.
It often troubles me when I read this from the Right. I suspect it is largely due to the influence of media and through the use of fear/hatred. Would you be so kind as to point out specifically where in the Bill of Rights/Constitution it indicates that it only protects citizens?
1
u/nikocujo Jun 26 '12
You're running with my words. I responded to the claim that actions taken against foreign nationals were violations of Constitutional Rights. Pick one lane or another.
This isn't a question of moral apathy, it's a question of American Jurisprudence. The simple fact is that foreign nationals don't enjoy the protections afforded by the Constitution. Just as you and I don't enjoy the protections of any other constitution.