>>>>>>A terrible ruling. Since when do non-citizens get the protection of the US Constitution?
>>>>>
>>>>>Why is this terrible? So now we can have real trials with real evidence? There's a problem with that?
>>>>>
>>>>>Doug
>>>>
>>>>Non citizens, don't rate the protection of the US Constitution.
>>>
>>>Really. So when people from other countries come to visit the US, they're not entitled to due process?
>>>
>>>Tamar
>>
>>Sure they have due process. The Guantanimo prisoners are not on US soil. They are on Cuban soil, which happens to be controlled by the US. The government's argument has been that they are not in the US. If they were here, they would have a right to due process and the US law enforcement agencies would be dealing with them, not the military, which is why they have not been brought here.
>
>First of all, I was responding to your comment above that "non citizens don't rate the protection of the US Constitution." Now you agree that they do, if they're in the US. Good.

Actually, I said they are guaranteed a subset of the rights we have as US citizens, if and only if, they are on US soil. There are a few distinctions that must be made. US citizens are afforded the full rights of the US Constitution, others have some rights (and those have been growing over the last 100 years), and then there is the issue of whether or not a non-citizen is an enemy combatant engaged in a military operation, and lastly the issue of where the prisoner is being held.

>
>Now we can talk about the prisoners at Guantanamo. The first question is whether US military bases outside the US are "US soil." I don't know the answer to that, but it seems important.
>
I agree, it is important. I think the US has taken the position that the bases are not owned by the US, but leased. If you lease, you definitely do not have the same rights as the owner.