- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
In response to the writer who suggested that some rights should not extend to non-citizens:
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Both the words "Citizen" and "Person" are included in this section. "Citizen" is defined, but "person" is not limited to citizenship. Why wouldn't the drafters of the 14th Amendment just use "citizen" alone?
There are multiple ways to read it, but I am of the opinion that due process was meant to extend to all persons. There is also the suspension clause, which states that habeas corpus may not be suspended except by Congress during period of war or insurrection. Congress has not suspended habeas corpus. What they have done is attempt to make the court inaccessible to suspected terrorists by removing the courts' jurisdiction to hear cases (I believe it was part of the Millitary Commissions Act). Whether it is Constitutional is debatable, but its sure as hell not the way it is supposed to be done.
The argument that this story should not be printed or a story about how wonderful our troops are substituted is too ridiculous to waste mental energy on.
