Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus
Excellent thoughtful post CRed. I must disagree with your interpretations, though. My understanding of the passage from Amendment 11 which you produced is that it was designed to speak against the idea that the Constitution can be applied in other countries. We can't apply the Constitution in France. But 9/11 was a crime committed in this country so that clause does not apply.
As for bin Laden's assent to governance by the Constitution, things do not work that way. Otherwise any foreigner could come to the USA, break federal law, and claim "You can't try me because I don't assent to your Constitution." Likewise, when I take one of my trips to India, I am subject to Indian law, including the Indian constitution, regardless of my nationality. For bin Laden, his assent was not required since he committed his crime on US soil.
Bin Laden's crime of 9/11 was committed on USA soil. This means that USA law definitely applied, including Constitutional law.
|
I look at it more like this: if a violation occurs against US laws, the US certainly has the prerogative to take action in accordance with the Constitution, and if the violation is committed by a US citizen, it has a duty to give that citizen their due process rights. However, if the violation occurs in a military or terrorist action, than the US has the option, as long as it is within international agreements, not to accord non-citizens those same rights. I think that, just as we publicly disavow clandestine acts to kill or topple regimes, you can make the argument that the US acted wrongly here. However, in a point of matter of "reality" there was just no way that the US was going to risk any type of lengthy legal maneuverings to take place with Bin Laden at the center.
It really comes down to (and yea this is great foreign policy) all is fair in love and war. Once Bin Laden took aim at the US, he wrote his own obituary rightly or wrongly
09-20-2011, 05:35 PM
Threaded Mode