Mexican teen has US constitutional rights

[Denny347]

So a declaration of war removes the "natural rights" of civilians in the war zone?

Not speaking for Libertarian01, but there are those here that state only Americans enjoy such rights.

 

[rambone]

A declaration of war is the government moving to intentionally violate people's rights.

 

[Libertarian01]

So a declaration of war removes the "natural rights" of civilians in the war zone?

To BehindBlueI's,

There is no "yes / no" answer here. It is both, and neither. It sends a message of intent to engage in activity that will violate the oppress the natural rights of enemy combatants AND anyone who gets between the two by creating a "warzone." Anyone in such a zone is warned that your rights may be oppressed with extreme violence and you should avoid such a zone with all due haste. It creates a new context of existence where civil liberties are not respected and do not receive the highest priority.

Not speaking for Libertarian01, but there are those here that state only Americans enjoy such rights.

To All,

I believe every human being has all of the natural rights granted them by nature or God. No matter where they live. No matter what their religion. No matter what their ethnicity or nationality.

However, as stated above, a warzone creates an area of known disrespect of said rights.

A declaration of war is the government moving to intentionally violate people's rights.

To All,

I agree with this. It is sending a message that our respect for your rights has been overridden by our desire to achieve victory. It creates a new legal context under which we shall be operating for the duration of the war.

With that in mind, it does NOT mean that we acknowledge no rights. My government teacher in High School was an officer during WWII who investigated complaints against American GI's by the locals. If they stole things he would investigate and pay the aggrieved civilian the amount that was stolen. If an American GI raped a local woman he would investigate AND present evidence for prosecution.

During war the rule of law can still apply albeit in an altered and diminished state.

It does depend upon the civilization at war. Let us not forget that MANY Germans ran from East to West to surrender to the Americans or British or ANYONE over surrendering to the Russians.

Regards,

Doug

 

[HoughMade]

So if I'm not a U.S. citizen I don't have the natural rights protected by the Constitution? O...............................K

I glad to see that most people here do not hold this position.

 

[HoughMade]

So a declaration of war removes the "natural rights" of civilians in the war zone?

Nope. It removes the ability to seek redress of a violation of those rights in U.S. courts when it happens within the parameters of the conflict and U.S. law.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Nope. It removes the ability to seek redress of a violation of those rights in U.S. courts when it happens within the parameters of the conflict and U.S. law.

So what's the difference, in a "legal precedent" context, between a drone strike and this? Especially given that strikes are made in countries we aren't at war with and against targets who are essentially criminals, not opposing armies.

Soldiers can be arrested and charged for war crimes, but they aren't sued. Lack of civil redress =/= free for all with no consequences. This seems like a pretty big can of worms to open.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

To BehindBlueI's,

There is no "yes / no" answer here. It is both, and neither. It sends a message of intent to engage in activity that will violate the oppress the natural rights of enemy combatants AND anyone who gets between the two by creating a "warzone." Anyone in such a zone is warned that your rights may be oppressed with extreme violence and you should avoid such a zone with all due haste. It creates a new context of existence where civil liberties are not respected and do not receive the highest priority.

Ah. You mean like a demarcated border of a sovereign nation repelling foreign invaders?

During war the rule of law can still apply albeit in an altered and diminished state.

We aren't talking rule of law. We aren't talking war crimes, or criminal activity at all. We're talking civil liability.