http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/25/ny...25embassy.html
I find this decision appalling, and hope it gets to the Supreme Court, though maybe not until after Obama has had a chance to appoint a justice or two.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/25/ny...25embassy.html
I find this decision appalling, and hope it gets to the Supreme Court, though maybe not until after Obama has had a chance to appoint a justice or two.
I wonder if that applies to searches in international airports?
Interesting, I can see how that's a legally grey area. What the article doesn't mention is whether the search was conducted in accordance with the laws of Kenya. I'd be curious to know if it was. I think there's a large and important difference between allowing US operatives who happen to be overseas to play by no rules at all and allowing evidence that was gathered overseas in ways legal by local rules.
I just don't like the idea that the rules change for a US citizen depending on where they happen to be standing. Obviously you have to respect the local country rules, but when it is a US issue, the US Constitution should apply regardless of where you are.
Yeah, this is really shaky. I can understand that if the Kenyan police want to search you based on local Kenyan rules, you can't tell them, sorry, I'm a U.S. citizen so you have to follow U.S. laws. But not U.S. officials searching you under Kenyan laws.
What would be very interesting from a legal scholarly point of view is the use of evidence obtained by Kenyan police, under their laws, of a U.S. citizen in a U.S. court. Which is I guess the Supreme Court ruling this will lead to.
Your government officials will conduct searches like Kenyans! They'll search you like Kenyans with the help of actual Kenyans and you'll get convicted and deported back to Kenyaaaa!
Appalling. This is what years of Republicans appointing judges leads to, I guess.
Originally Posted by Qenan
Ediit: Nope all three are Dem appointed. The judge who wrote the opinion is a Clinton appointee. The other two were a Carter and a LBJ appointee.
So you can revert that to the dangers of Democratic Appointed Judges. ;)
Last edited by JeffL; 11-24-2008 at 07:20 PM.
Egads. Well, it was Clinton.
LOL! Well, Clinton, Carter, and LBJ! Ya can't trust anyone! ;)
perfect!
Why do you think that Obama would appoint a Judge that would strike this down? Obama seems to support this sort of thing: He supports the warrantless wiretapping, and would surely support a Judge who does also.
That's completely ludicrous. You step outside the US's borders and suddenly "the goverment has a good enough reason" gives them the power to wiretap you without a warrant?
If you're not on the bus, you're off the bus.
Godwin time. Does this mean that if I were in Nazi Germany, the U.S. govt. would treat me as the Nazis would?
Damn you, I just had an extensive reply prepared.
*shakes fist*
I'm not sure I understand the rationale here at all:
Soooo...some of the Constitution applies to U.S. citizens when they're out of the country, but not all of it? How do they decide which passages apply?
It's one thing to say we give up all our rights when we leave the country - that's scary, but at least it's consistent. But to say we still have some of our rights, but not all of them, to be arbitrarily chosen by the government when it sees fit - that's just sloppy.
Where can you get searched? Only in Kenya! Where do you need a warrant? Not in Kenya! Come to Kenya you'll get searched!
Fuck the Obama Admin and its approach to civil liberties. From that article:
In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.
This simply streamlines the process, eliminates the middleman, and increases efficiency, while reducing paperwork and the cost to the taxpayer. Everyone wins!“The Fourth Amendment's requirement of reasonableness — but not the Warrant Clause — applies to extraterritorial searches and seizures of U.S. citizens,” the judge wrote.
It's really simple, just create a new court specifically for accused terrorists modeled on the system used in various totalitarian states: prisoners are assumed guilty, since they would not be before the court if they weren't, and thus the court only has to decide the sentence, which would be based the recommendation of the arresting authority. The minimum sentence would be death, and the maximum sentence would be death after torture. This court would of course be privatized, with the job going to the lowest bidder.Since then, there has been a national debate over whether people accused of terrorism should be treated as criminals and tried in the federal courts, or held as enemy combatants to be tried, if at all, before military tribunals, where defendants have fewer rights and there is less public disclosure.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote