On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 09:16:23 -0500, John Gaquin wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message

.....that he would limit civil liberties to American citizens. In point
of law, they are extended to anyone on American soil, citizens and
non-citizens, and I personally think they should be extended to anyone
under American control, e.g. Guantanamo. If my assumption was in error,
my apologies.

No apology necessary, we deal here with a great deal of personal opinion
and interpretation. While true that we have, under law extended general
constitutional protections to anyone on our soil, I believe we have done
so at our discretion. In truth, I don't know any courts' holdings on the
subject, but my readings do not show me that we need *guarantee*
constitutional protections to non-citizens.

I'm not a lawyer, and you may be right. That discretion may be close to
precedent, but I couldn't find anything definitive searching the net. I
did find this debate:

http://www.generationvote.com/vnews/.../3ce1ce2357bd7

"thunder" wrote in message

.....I couldn't find anything definitive searching the net. I
did find this debate:

http://www.generationvote.com/vnews/.../3ce1ce2357bd7

I would like to have been there for that debate. I give Buchanan points for
traveling to Williams, which is somewhat akin to Ariel Sharon visiting an al
Qaida camp.

The article was good, except for the author's final interpretation, wherein
he claimed that Strossen based her position on points of law (by referring
to the Declaration and positing that the Bill of Rights was *intended* to
apply to guarantee the human rights of all persons on US soil [see my other
post].) and Buchanan based his position only on fears and prejudices (by
referencing specific constitutional guarantees and provisions). Seems to me
that the author got it backwards. Of course, Williams College is hardly an
impartial venue. :-)