Ron Paul on Edward Snowden’s indictment

reply to post by flyswatter

But as I said in a post before, the Supreme Court laid it out long ago that the rights extended by the Constitution extend to Americans overseas, but not foreigners overseas.

yeah, i remember reading about that distinction in the constitution, oh wait...i'd love to see a link for that.

I'm really not sure how the process of trying to gain access to warrants issued by the FISC would work. I'm fairly certain that it would be a pain in the rear, but if you want to find out, take a shot. See what you can find out about the process. There's nothing that says they have to show you anything, but I guess it cant hurt to give it a shot.

you claimed that warrants are being served correctly, if at all, so i asked you to provide proof of this claim.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by flyswatter

 

But as I said in a post before, the Supreme Court laid it out long ago that the rights extended by the Constitution extend to Americans overseas, but not foreigners overseas.

yeah, i remember reading about that distinction in the constitution, oh wait...i'd love to see a link for that.

I'm really not sure how the process of trying to gain access to warrants issued by the FISC would work. I'm fairly certain that it would be a pain in the rear, but if you want to find out, take a shot. See what you can find out about the process. There's nothing that says they have to show you anything, but I guess it cant hurt to give it a shot.

you claimed that warrants are being served correctly, if at all, so i asked you to provide proof of this claim.

I believe what I quoted was in reference to Reid v Covert, which began in 1955 and had a final ruling in 1957. You can look that up if you wish. You can also contact Kal Raustiala, the author of the following article that my previous quote was pulled from:
www.international.ucla.edu...

As far as the warrants go, I made no comment on them past the fact that they are issued. The only thing we know is that the FISC was establsihed by the FISA to issue those warrants. If you want some details on that, you're free to contact the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and ask him who the judges are that currently sit on the FISC, since he is the one that appoints them.

reply to post by flyswatter

the supreme court does not have the authority to say what rights apply to whom. it is not an issue that revolves around interpretation, as "inalienable rights" has an easily understandable meaning.

"where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." miranda v. arizona

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

this is not my opinion, and requires no "interpretation". "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men..."

it does not matter what rules or legislation is passed, inalienable rights remain.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by flyswatter

 

the supreme court does not have the authority to say what rights apply to whom. it is not an issue that revolves around interpretation, as "inalienable rights" has an easily understandable meaning.

"where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." miranda v. arizona

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

this is not my opinion, and requires no "interpretation". "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men..."

it does not matter what rules or legislation is passed, inalienable rights remain.

Actually, the Supreme Court is the one authority that CAN interpret the Constitution in a manner that alters who gets what righs. They obviously do not change the wording of the Constitution itself, but their opinions in rulings are the one way that legal interpretation of the Constitution is changed. There is no other way for it to happen, outside of Constitutional amendments.

If we were to apply these "inalienable rights" to every person on the planet, we would have no ability to wage war. The US would not have anything resembling counterintelligence.

I am not at all above admitting that I am wrong, but to my knowledge there is not even a single lonely ruling in the history of this country that proves that Constitutional rights apply to foreigners abroad. If you can find one, more power to you, and I will eat my words.

reply to post by flyswatter

I am not at all above admitting that I am wrong, but to my knowledge there is not even a single lonely ruling in the history of this country that proves that Constitutional rights apply to foreigners abroad.

there does not need to be a ruling to state that "self-evident" truths are true. you can have your opinion and disagree, of course.

notice that after the declaration of independence was written, what did they do? they fought a war.

if you're arguing the world is a better place because of wars and spy programs, you'd be quite wrong. sometimes war is necessary, but usually not.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by flyswatter

 

I am not at all above admitting that I am wrong, but to my knowledge there is not even a single lonely ruling in the history of this country that proves that Constitutional rights apply to foreigners abroad.

there does not need to be a ruling to state that "self-evident" truths are true. you can have your opinion and disagree, of course.

notice that after the declaration of independence was written, what did they do? they fought a war.

if you're arguing the world is a better place because of wars and spy programs, you'd be quite wrong. sometimes war is necessary, but usually not.

But given their own Constitution, they shouldnt have been able to fight a war. If we were to extend the rights to those individuals that oppose us in the war, the war simply wouldnt happen. Not legally, anyway.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'd still love to see any time that Constitutional rights have ever been extended to foreigners abroad though

As far as the world being a better place because of war, it really depends on how you look at it. War is never good, but the end result of some wars have absolutely had positive effects on the world in general. Thats a whole other can of worms though.

reply to post by flyswatter


Due Process is all that need be looked at. Which was initially addressed in the 1200's in the Magna Carta.

Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individual person from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due-process violation, which offends against the rule of law.

Clauses still in force The clauses of the 1297 Magna Carta still on statute are: Clause 1, the freedom of the English Church Clause 9 (clause 13 in the 1215 charter), the "ancient liberties" of the City of London Clause 29 (clause 39 in the 1215 charter), a right to due process

Magna Carta wiki

and here is info on due process

Originally posted by flyswatter

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by flyswatter

 

I am not at all above admitting that I am wrong, but to my knowledge there is not even a single lonely ruling in the history of this country that proves that Constitutional rights apply to foreigners abroad.

there does not need to be a ruling to state that "self-evident" truths are true. you can have your opinion and disagree, of course.

notice that after the declaration of independence was written, what did they do? they fought a war.

if you're arguing the world is a better place because of wars and spy programs, you'd be quite wrong. sometimes war is necessary, but usually not.

But given their own Constitution, they shouldnt have been able to fight a war. If we were to extend the rights to those individuals that oppose us in the war, the war simply wouldnt happen. Not legally, anyway.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'd still love to see any time that Constitutional rights have ever been extended to foreigners abroad though

As far as the world being a better place because of war, it really depends on how you look at it. War is never good, but the end result of some wars have absolutely had positive effects on the world in general. Thats a whole other can of worms though.

Under a declaration of war the individuals are considered enemy combatants and their rights are forfeit.

In the United States, Congress, which makes the rules for the military, has the power under the constitution to "declare war". However neither the U.S. Constitution nor the law stipulate what format a declaration of war must take. War declarations have the force of law and are intended to be executed by the President as "commander in chief" of the armed forces. The last time Congress passed joint resolutions saying that a "state of war" existed was on 5 June 1942, when the U.S. declared war on Bulgaria, Hungary, and Rumania.[32] Since then, the U.S. has used the term "authorization to use military force", as in the case against Iraq in 2003. Sometimes decisions for military engagements were made by US presidents, without formal approval by Congress, based on UN Security Council resolutions that do not expressly declare the UN or its members to be at war. Part of the justification for the United States invasion of Panama was to capture Manuel Noriega (as a prisoner of war)[33] because he was declared a criminal rather than a belligerent.[citation needed] In response to the attacks on 11 September 2001, the United States Congress passed the joint resolution Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists on 14 September 2001, which authorized the US President to fight the War on Terror.[3

Originally posted by Privateinquotations

Originally posted by flyswatter

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by flyswatter

 

I am not at all above admitting that I am wrong, but to my knowledge there is not even a single lonely ruling in the history of this country that proves that Constitutional rights apply to foreigners abroad.

there does not need to be a ruling to state that "self-evident" truths are true. you can have your opinion and disagree, of course.

notice that after the declaration of independence was written, what did they do? they fought a war.

if you're arguing the world is a better place because of wars and spy programs, you'd be quite wrong. sometimes war is necessary, but usually not.

But given their own Constitution, they shouldnt have been able to fight a war. If we were to extend the rights to those individuals that oppose us in the war, the war simply wouldnt happen. Not legally, anyway.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'd still love to see any time that Constitutional rights have ever been extended to foreigners abroad though

As far as the world being a better place because of war, it really depends on how you look at it. War is never good, but the end result of some wars have absolutely had positive effects on the world in general. Thats a whole other can of worms though.

Under a declaration of war the individuals are considered enemy combatants and their rights are forfeit.

In the United States, Congress, which makes the rules for the military, has the power under the constitution to "declare war". However neither the U.S. Constitution nor the law stipulate what format a declaration of war must take. War declarations have the force of law and are intended to be executed by the President as "commander in chief" of the armed forces. The last time Congress passed joint resolutions saying that a "state of war" existed was on 5 June 1942, when the U.S. declared war on Bulgaria, Hungary, and Rumania.[32] Since then, the U.S. has used the term "authorization to use military force", as in the case against Iraq in 2003. Sometimes decisions for military engagements were made by US presidents, without formal approval by Congress, based on UN Security Council resolutions that do not expressly declare the UN or its members to be at war. Part of the justification for the United States invasion of Panama was to capture Manuel Noriega (as a prisoner of war)[33] because he was declared a criminal rather than a belligerent.[citation needed] In response to the attacks on 11 September 2001, the United States Congress passed the joint resolution Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists on 14 September 2001, which authorized the US President to fight the War on Terror.[3

Oh, dont get me wrong. I understand this. I was just commenting about one thing that would happen if the Constitutional rights derived from the Bill of Rights were granted to foreigners abroad.

reply to post by flyswatter

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'd still love to see any time that Constitutional rights have ever been extended to foreigners abroad though

i've just discovered this nice tidbit. "the universal declaration of human rights". it is an internationally binding agreement signed by the U.S. et al, and clearly states a person's rights to life, liberty, property, and privacy. it is the standard that is used to enunciate human rights violations, and applies to all countries and people whether they signed or not. these are all inalienable rights.

Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 17. (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

www.un.org...

you sir, are now required to eat your hat. i shall be waiting for a youtube video.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by flyswatter

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'd still love to see any time that Constitutional rights have ever been extended to foreigners abroad though

i've just discovered this nice tidbit. "the universal declaration of human rights". it is an internationally binding agreement signed by the U.S. et al, and clearly states a person's rights to life, liberty, property, and privacy. it is the standard that is used to enunciate human rights violations, and applies to all countries and people whether they signed or not. these are all inalienable rights.

Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 17. (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

www.un.org...

you sir, are now required to eat your hat. i shall be waiting for a youtube video.

edit on 2-7-2013 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)

Well first, I said I would eat my words, not my hat And second, that was in reference to the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights, had nothing to do with with the UN DoHR.

As far as that declaration goes, I'm not very familiar with its application so I cant really argue much about it. The one thing of note that I have seen in the last couple of minutes is this:
" ... Adopted in 1948, the UDHR has inspired a rich body of legally binding international human rights treaties."
"...Over the years, the commitment has been translated into law, whether in the forms of treaties, customary international law, general principles, regional agreements and domestic law, through which human rights are expressed and guaranteed. "

The fact that it has "inspired a rich body of legally binding international human rights treaties" would seem to indicate that this document is not legally binding in itself. Granted, this is just after a brief glance over things. I still have to take time to read more on it though, but the document itself does not seem to be an "enforceable" law by anything beyond maybe UN condemnation.

reply to post by flyswatter

Using the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a guide, governments are responsible for creating national laws to protect universal human rights. Citizens can then use their own judicial and legal systems to prosecute individuals or groups that have violated human rights.

the document is very reminiscent of the rights established in the constitution. the document itself isn't legally binding, though countries that sign it intend to enforce the same principles contained inside.

you may have a point if you could use constitutional law to demonstrate that the 4th amendment restrictions on obtaining a warrant aren't applicable if the person is a non-citizen in a foreign country, but you won't find that anywhere.

constitutional law is quite clear. your whole argument rests on whether or not it has ever been enforced as such, but that is inconsequential. breaking constitutional law, even if that restriction hasn't been enforced (mostly because a case like this has never come up before), is still a violation of constitutional law. the 4th amendment is not a restriction on citizens, it's a restriction on the government. the government is bound by the 4th amendment, there are no exception clauses for foreigners.

constitutional law is quite clear. your whole argument rests on whether or not it has ever been enforced as such, but that is inconsequential. breaking constitutional law, even if that restriction hasn't been enforced (mostly because a case like this has never come up before), is still a violation of constitutional law. the 4th amendment is not a restriction on citizens, it's a restriction on the government. the government is bound by the 4th amendment, there are no exception clauses for foreigners.

It doesnt really matter much that I disagree with you on this. The Supreme Court disagrees, and they are the ones with the overwhelming power in this case. If you think that this is the way that it should be done and how it should be enforced, take your idea to the next level. Contact the appropriate people and see how far you can take it. Although I dont think you'll get very far, I'd fully support the attempt.

Why would the government take away Snowden's passport? There are no real charges other than the truth, yet this Government does not have to obey the LAW? Can do what & how it wants! They are implying 'they are above the law... are exempt from the truth ...as they apply Chemicals out of Airplanes (CHEM-TRAILS) destroy & end the lives of countless species everyday (over 200 go extinct every 3 months more than 2 a day never to be here again). This is all for GREED, one of the ugliest words there is, it is apparent everyday I strive to help pollinators regain lost ground, educate people on importance of riding chemically grown landscapes to native flowering plants, to transform outdoor space into viable environmentally positive outdoor living space for man & nature to enjoy. We seem to be living in a world of greed the past several thousand yrs. Some tribes have over come greed, yet when modern society is thrust upon them, some younger ones gravitate towards greed. They say without greed, man would not have accomplished all these achievements, as I argue the fact with there was a man, Nicoli Tesla, who against all odds, strove to help man, he invented great works, that have been put away so that certain men could profit from Tesla's earlier inventions. How sad it is, we place this huge power in the hands of those,are the greediest. The more one realizes, the one see's how much we have been sheep for so long. People like Snowden have much courage, to tell the truth to his fellow country men.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

And you have been here since 2004

Actually I have been here longer, at some point the website screwed up and gave me a 2004 start point. I think the true start point is 2001.


V

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

however, what the NSA is doing violates constitutional rights. that is illegal. the whole "it's not a violation until a court decides it is" isn't correct. that may be your opinion, but that isn't how things work.

Wrong Bob, it is exactly how things work.



V

reply to post by Variable

Wrong Bob, it is exactly how things work.

not where rights secured by the constitution are involved. the supreme court doesn't have the power our authority to infringe on a constitutional right. no one does without due process of a specific individual.

reply to post by flyswatter

The Supreme Court disagrees

they don't have the power to disagree. illegal laws need not be followed, nor illegal rulings.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

not where rights secured by the constitution are involved. the supreme court doesn't have the power our authority to infringe on a constitutional right. no one does without due process of a specific individual.

...and your getting your justification from what? Your interpretation of something? What if the target is not a US citizen? What if a legal warrant is obtained from a court for a request pertaining to a US citizen?

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.

So a legal warrant is obtained and your argument is what?

V

reply to post by Variable

So a legal warrant is obtained and your argument is what?

that the warrants are not legally obtained. they do not specify specific individuals with probable cause indicating exactly what can be taken.