Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 16 Mar '13 00:14
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/15/charles-krauthammer-constitutional-ignorance-foreign-soil?INTCMP=SRCH

    "Charles Krauthammer's false statement about the US Constitution"
    by Glenn Greenwald (15 March 2013, 'The Guardian'

    "Outside American soil, the Constitution does not rule, no matter how much
    (Rand) Paul would like it."
    --Charles Krauthammer (a neo-conservative American columnist)

    Glenn Greenwald contends that Charles Krauthammer does not understand the
    US Constitution. (I long have believed that, on the basis of other evidence,
    Charles Krauthammer's a liar and a virulent racist, but that's another story.)

    The writers here who like to dispute about the US Constitution might like
    to do so about whether Charles Krauthammer or Glenn Greenwald is right in
    interpreting the US Constitution.
  2. 16 Mar '13 00:24
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/15/charles-krauthammer-constitutional-ignorance-foreign-soil?INTCMP=SRCH

    "Charles Krauthammer's false statement about the US Constitution"
    by Glenn Greenwald (15 March 2013, 'The Guardian'

    "Outside American soil, the Constitution does not rule, no matter how much
    (Rand) Paul would like it."
    --Char ...[text shortened]... r Charles Krauthammer or Glenn Greenwald is right in
    interpreting the US Constitution.
    I'm not certain, but it seems to me settled that Constitutional protections of citizens has always gone beyond our shores. Whenever possible, we will give US citizens sanctuary in our embassies, unless the other government asks for extradition.

    Krauthammer is a pragmatist, like many in both parties, who will justify any means to suit a desired end.
  3. 16 Mar '13 11:10 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/15/charles-krauthammer-constitutional-ignorance-foreign-soil?INTCMP=SRCH

    "Charles Krauthammer's false statement about the US Constitution"
    by Glenn Greenwald (15 March 2013, 'The Guardian'

    "Outside American soil, the Constitution does not rule, no matter how much
    (Rand) Paul would like it."
    --Char r Charles Krauthammer or Glenn Greenwald is right in
    interpreting the US Constitution.
    Why would the constitution not be applicable to US citizens with regard to treatment by the US regardless of geographic location? Treatment from other governments obviously will not need to abide by our constitution but by our own government it should. I would go so far as to say we should treat everyone the same and extend all the rights of our constitution to all we have dealings with. They are just looking for a loophole to assassinate people. All people are created equal. Do we live by it?
  4. 16 Mar '13 23:30
    Originally posted by normbenign
    I'm not certain, but it seems to me settled that Constitutional protections of citizens has always gone beyond our shores. Whenever possible, we will give US citizens sanctuary in our embassies, unless the other government asks for extradition.

    Krauthammer is a pragmatist, like many in both parties, who will justify any means to suit a desired end.
    My original post seems to have turned into a test of basic reading comprehension.
    If you (Normbenign) had read and comprehended the linked article by Glenn
    Greenwald, you should have known that, in his confuting of Charles Krauthammer,
    he cited the 1957 US Supreme Court case of Reid v Covert:

    "At the beginning, we reject the idea that, when the United States acts against
    citizens abroad, it can do so free of the Bill of Rights....When the government
    reaches out to punish a citizen who is abroad, the shield which the Bill of Rights
    and other parts of the Constitution provide to protect his life and liberty should
    not be stripped away just because he happens to be in another land."
    --US Supreme Court (1957, Reid v Covert)

    Therefore, a US citizen does not lose one's constitutional rights simply for being
    outside the USA. If Normbenign were on a secret US government 'hit list', it
    should be unconstitutional for the US government to kill him with a drone strike
    if he happened to cross the border into Canada.
  5. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    17 Mar '13 04:17
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    My original post seems to have turned into a test of basic reading comprehension.
    If you (Normbenign) had read and comprehended the linked article by Glenn
    Greenwald, you should have known that, in his confuting of Charles Krauthammer,
    he cited the 1957 US Supreme Court case of Reid v Covert:

    "At the beginning, we reject the idea that, when the Unite ...[text shortened]... government to kill him with a drone strike
    if he happened to cross the border into Canada.
    Regarding your last paragraph, and for comparison, Britain doesn't have a constitution per say, at least not in a single document, which is both a strength and a weakness. The fundamental concept, as I see it, for the British should drone strikes be ordered by Cameron against British Subjects is a matter of protection. We owe Her Majesty for protection - she provides the armed forces and we can go about our lives not worrying about foreign invasion. The flip side to that is that if it is our own government from whom we need protection then we can withdraw our consent to be ruled, typically by a riot, which is hardly legal but then again that's the point. The basis of any constitution is to resolve internal conflicts, and if conflicts aren't being satisfyingly resolved...

    This means that should a primeminister order the killing of a British Subject then there are three issues. For Police actions where lethal force is used the normal justification is protecting the public or (police) self-defence. However these threats are immediate, whereas a drone strike against a British Subject in another country, where we are not currently at war, is hardly in response to an immediate threat against members of the British public. Although I'm sure that it's possible to contrive a scenario where such action might be justified, as a rule it can hardly be.

    The second is the violation of the other countries prerogative to provide the protection, although this is more of a "trust amongst nations" point, rather than a point about constitutions and the internal protections they hopefully give. This kind of thing is done under Royal Prerogative in the U.K. which gives a lot of leeway. In the U.S. the Constitution does not allow acts of war without the consent of congress, a drone strike in a foreign country is an Act of War even if targeted at a citizen of the striking nation.

    The third is an interesting one, which is to what extent does a traitor deserve due process? By putting themselves outside HM's protection and seeking to harm her, have they placed themselves beyond the protection of our laws as well? A treason trial is hardly a fair thing - the last two here for actual high treason were Amery (pleaded guilty for gods' sakes) and William Joyce (Lord Haw-haw) who was technically either Irish or an American (he had a fake British passport so they hanged him) - but they did get a process of sorts. Immediacy notwithstanding, I see no reason that a British Subject who has turned traitor should be targeted for drone strike. Either our relations with the country are so bad that it's like they've defected to North Korea, or they are extraditable. The Supreme Court judgment you quoted seems to indicate that this is true for the US as well. On the whole it's best to stick to the rule of law.
  6. 17 Mar '13 09:15
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    The last two here for actual high treason were Amery (pleaded guilty for gods' sakes) and William Joyce (Lord Haw-haw) who was technically either Irish or an American (he had a fake British passport so they hanged him) - but they did get a process of sorts.
    The mother of a friend of mine was a child during the war and vividly remembered how shocked people were when Haw-Haw was sentenced to hang; he had been treated as a joke by most people during the war.

    But Amery pleaded guilty knowing that there was no permissible sentence for treason except the death penalty.
  7. 17 Mar '13 18:46
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    My original post seems to have turned into a test of basic reading comprehension.
    If you (Normbenign) had read and comprehended the linked article by Glenn
    Greenwald, you should have known that, in his confuting of Charles Krauthammer,
    he cited the 1957 US Supreme Court case of Reid v Covert:

    "At the beginning, we reject the idea that, when the Unite ...[text shortened]... government to kill him with a drone strike
    if he happened to cross the border into Canada.
    How does that differ with what I wrote? I was just a bit less wordy. You did notice that I took the same position as Greenwald, with which you seem to agree.
  8. 17 Mar '13 22:45
    Originally posted by normbenign
    How does that differ with what I wrote? I was just a bit less wordy. You did notice that I took the same position as Greenwald, with which you seem to agree.
    "I'm not certain..."
    --Normbenign (writing earlier of his position)

    When you (Normbenign) begin your post by writing "I'm not certain", one may
    reasonably conclude that you did not have a well-established position to express
    or that you still had significant doubts about it. So one may reasonably conclude
    that you failed to comprehend Glenn Greenwald's quoting a US Supreme Court
    decision on point or, for some inexplicable reason, you still believed that Charles
    Krauthammer's position had enough merit for you to be 'not certain' (as you said).
  9. 17 Mar '13 23:08 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Teinosuke to DeepThought
    The mother of a friend of mine was a child during the war and vividly
    remembered how shocked people were when Haw-Haw was sentenced to hang;
    he had been treated as a joke by most people during the war.

    But Amery pleaded guilty knowing that there was no permissible sentence
    for treason except the death penalty.
    If he had not pleaded guilty to treason, John Amery might have been able to
    avoid being convicted of, or at least being executed for, treason against the UK.
    One line of defence would have been that John Amery had become the citizen of
    another country. Another line of defence (or of mitigiation) would have been that
    John Amery was mentally ill (given his history of apparently irrational behaviour).
    His executioner described John Amery as 'the bravest man I ever hanged'.

    If John Amery had known that he was 1/4 Jewish by ancestry (Leo Amery had
    concealed the fact that his own mother was Jewish), then would he still have fallen
    in with the Nazis? On the other hand, many Mischlinge (Germans who were 1/4
    or even 1/2 Jewish) served in the Third Reich's armed forces. Admiral Lutjens,
    who commanded the (battleship) Bismarck's ill-fated mission, was 1/4 Jewish.

    Leo Amery wrote this in memory of his son, John Amery:
    "At end of wayward days, he found a cause
    'Twas not his Country's--Only time can tell
    If that defiance of our ancient laws
    Was treason or foreknowledge. He sleeps well."
    --Leo Amery
  10. 17 Mar '13 23:11
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    "I'm not certain..."
    --Normbenign (writing earlier of his position)

    When you (Normbenign) begin your post by writing "I'm not certain", one may
    reasonably conclude that you did not have a well-established position to express
    or that you still had significant doubts about it. So one may reasonably conclude
    that you failed to comprehend Glenn Greenw ...[text shortened]... es
    Krauthammer's position had enough merit for you to be 'not certain' (as you said).
    I was seriously critical of Krauthammer. I was not certain, but said I believed that citizenship rights traveled with the citizen. Jezo petes. You argue when I disagree, and even when I agree.