[Grovenet] The law

[Katie Allnutt]

Steven,
   The fact that our laws don't always apply to non citizens is an  
important point and it highlights one problem that Mr. Bush has at  
the moment.
The US argues simultaneously that it has the best government in the  
world and that we want to encourage other people to have a system  
similar to ours.
If we really believed that our laws are better than theirs it would  
seem that we have enough faith in our laws to apply them to others as  
well.
Too often we say, those who torture shouldn't do it but here we are  
trying every trick in the book to use torture.
The rest of the world sees this for the hypocrisy that it is.  Either  
we believe in our laws and we want others to use our laws or we  
believe their laws are better and we try theirs.


It would truly promote democracy and government of laws if we were to  
say, the US constitution is the best in the world and here is how you  
can use it to apply protections to people all over the world, US  
citizen or not.

And no, I'm not claiming that every concept in the Constitution apply  
to everyone in the world because it wouldn't make sense to elect  
congressmen from the UAE to sit in congress etc, but the portion that  
require us to refrain from maiming people is a good place to start.

So, in answer to your question, how would US laws apply to a non  
citizen at all? Because we believe in them enough to apply them, even  
when we have a choice not to.

Katie

On Apr 2, 2008, at 7:53 PM, Steven wrote:

> Federal laws and the constitution affect citizens of the US. Unless  
> Mr. Al
> Kahad is a citizen, how would the laws apply at all?
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet- 
>> bounces at rdrop.com]On
>> Behalf Of Steele, Mike
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 11:34 AM
>> To: Forest Grove local interests list
>> Subject: [Grovenet] The law
>>
>>
>> News reports today offer the following little tidbit:   "The Justice
>> Department
>> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Department+of 
>> +Just
>> ice?tid=informline>  sent a legal memorandum to the Pentagon
>> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+Pentagon? 
>> tid=inform
>> line>  in 2003 asserting that federal laws prohibiting assault,  
>> maiming
>> and other crimes did not apply to military interrogators who  
>> questioned
>> al-Qaeda
>> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Al+Qaeda? 
>> tid=informline
>>>  captives because the president's ultimate authority as commander in
>> chief overrode such statutes."
>>
>>
>>
>> Hmmmm...but here's the standard military enlistment oath for enlisted
>> personnel and officers:  "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm)  
>> that I
>> will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against
>> all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and
>> allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the  
>> President
>> of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over  
>> me,
>> according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So
>> help me God."
>>
>>
>>
>> Hmmm...let me see...the constitution comes first in line...the  
>> president
>> only later...and the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not permit
>> torture (waterboarding having been a prosecutable war crime in US
>> charges against Japanese war criminals)...
>>
>>
>>
>> One wonders if this created an allegiance issue for those who  
>> received
>> the memorandum?
>>
>>
>>
>> --Mike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GroveNet mailing list
>> GroveNet at rdrop.com
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet