Assange Hearing Day 6

Re:Assange Hearing Day 6 by chrisco255 on Tuesday September 08, 2020 @01:26PM (#24410585)

In legal practice this is not true at all. The recognition of natural rights and legal enforcement of them are two different things. The Constitution begins with the phrase "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,[note 1] 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." It clearly states that the Constitution is for the people of the U.S.

The Declaration of Independence went further, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

However, no legal guarantees of rights are made in the declaration.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Assange Hearing Day 6 by monocasa on Tuesday September 08, 2020 @02:44PM (#24411513)

There's plenty of both comments by the founding fathers and subsequent Supreme Court case law that the constitution applies to non citizens as well pretty much anywhere it says "people" rather than "citizen". This comes from a combo of the rights at the time being more thought of as a listing of inalienable rights rather than rights granted by the government, as well as the idea that in order to hold non citizens to the obligations of the legal system you should grant the the rights of the legal system as well.

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Assange Hearing Day 6 by marcus_holmes on Tuesday September 08, 2020 @04:08PM (#24412566)

That doesn't mean it should apply to people who aren't citizens.

Applying Nigerian law to people who aren't citizens of Nigeria would rightfully be questioned. The USA is not exempt from that. Just because it's illegal in the USA doesn't make it illegal everywhere

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Assange Hearing Day 6 by mindslight on Tuesday September 08, 2020 @04:56PM (#24413258)

> Just because it's illegal in the USA doesn't make it illegal everywhere

You'll get 100% agreement from me on that, and for example I think the ongoing promulgation of global US jurisdiction using USD as a wedge is a travesty.

But we're discussing human rights and restrictions on government, not what the US has declared illegal for US persons being applied to non-US persons. We're really talking about applying US law to the US government, operating abroad.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Assange Hearing Day 6 by mindslight on Tuesday September 08, 2020 @02:33PM (#24411373)

I acknowledged the mechanical legal aspect - "YMMV with practical enforcement though."

But we should hold our governments to the standards they are purportedly founded on, rather than buying into the justifications that they themselves have created. The opportunities to concretely do this are rare, but extradition trials being judged by a different government are one of those places.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Assange Hearing Day 6 by raxxorrax on Tuesday September 08, 2020 @03:32PM (#24412088)

That it doesn't mean shit seems to be indeed "legal" practice.

[ Parent | on HN ]