Yes, you read that right. The Constitution applies to terrorists. It also applies to stay-at-home moms, illegal immigrants, truck drivers, anti-government radicals, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Put differently, the Constitution does not apply only to citizens of the United States. It seems that protectionist collectivists treat this document like a two-year-old treats his favorite toy—unwilling to share, and incorrectly believing that it is his and his alone. This fallacy has become so propagated throughout the country’s general political mindset that a barbaric jingoism has resulted, leading people to automatically support the denial of constitutional protections of freedom for anybody who is a “terrorist”.
But who is a terrorist?
The picture that first comes to mind is the “insurgent” fighting against our military in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the other countries of the Middle East in which our military is increasingly becoming engaged. Some examples of such “terrorists” might be: the vengeful man whose innocent brother was killed by an unmanned drone over the border of Pakistan; the adrenaline-fueled teenager taking on the militarized Goliath occupying his hometown; the man in the wrong place at the wrong time, picked up by a bounty hunter and sold to the American government with a fictional story created about his involvement in terrorist activities; and the list could continue, portraying stories far different than the standard “radical jihadist” that dominates our media’s narrative.
Things hit closer to home when the suspected terrorists have white skin. Take, for example, the Missouri Information Analysis Center report which labeled as terrorists supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, and anybody sporting paraphernalia associated with the Constitution Party, Campaign for Liberty, or the Libertarian Party.
The absurdity continues—the government has also considered defenders of the Constitution, home-schoolers, peaceful protestors, and a host of patriotic organizations and individuals as terrorists. Do these “domestic rightwing terrorists” not merit constitutional safeguards of their liberty?
In other words, with a “terrorist” being any individual—U.S. citizen or not—upon whom the government arbitrarily imposes that label, why would anybody not consider the Constitution as applying to that individual? Some may take issue with this generality and instead specify the argument as only being relevant to non-citizens. But do these folks even understand what the Constitution is?
The Constitution is a document that created the federal government, and in so doing, specified powers granted to and denied that entity. It does not apply to a person or group of people, but rather to the government itself. In saying above that the Constitution applies to terrorists, truck drivers, etc., the idea is conveyed that the Constitution applies to all people who have any dealings with the federal government.
The cotton picker in Uzbekistan couldn’t care less about the U.S. Constitution, and taken literally, it does not really apply to him. But say this person vacationed in Pittsburgh, or say he visited the local American embassy. Having any interaction with agents of the federal government makes the Constitution relevant to him, since that governing document applies to the federal government and those who comprise it. Whether the person be a cotton picker, an “insurgent”, or anybody else, the federal government is bound by the constraints of the Constitution, and in attempting to administer legal punishment to another person, must give due process and protect other basic human rights—rights which the Declaration of Independence makes clear are given by the Creator to every individual.
Were this not the case, the government could extinguish the life of any non-citizen it wanted, at any time, for any reason—or for no reason at all. For if the guarantees enshrined in the Constitution apply only to U.S. citizens, what prevents the government from denying these rights to any non-citizen? The constitutional restraints are not specific to an individual who happens to be a citizen, thus (allegedly) preventing the federal government from denying them their rights, but rather are shackles of self-restraint placed around the appendages of the government itself, regardless of who the government deals with. Under the Constitution, all are recognized as enjoying basic rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; the government must follow an established process if it wishes to deny these rights to any individual, whatever his or her nationality.
Americans must resist the tendency to be so selfish with our supposed freedoms. We either believe that our rights came from our Creator—and thus exist for all His children—or we don’t. We either believe that the federal government has power to deal as it pleases with any non-citizen, or we don’t. And we either view so-called “terrorists” as human beings entitled, insofar as is possible, to due process when dealing with our government, or we don’t. The alternative is an alarming one, for tomorrow you and I might ourselves be branded with this dubious distinction, finding ourselves the subject of scorn and derision, reduced to a discardable humanoid whose very existence is at the mercy of another person.
This is not the America I grew up in, nor the one I want to pass on to my children. How about you?
Nice work. You saved me the trouble of writing something very similar. I’d throw in the curious similarity between how our gov’t does things now and how it was in Rome at the time of Christ. Remember how differently the Apostle Paul was treated as soon as his captors found out he was a Roman citizen.
I would view the Constitution as containing the MINIMUM restrictions on government powers over individuals, not the maximum as some people seem to think.
Criminals have always existed. What is a criminal? Someone who, with malicious intent, violates or seeks to violate the life/person, liberty or property of another.
A terrorist is just another name for a criminal. They are not some special case or group whereby traditional criminal law or constitutions need to be uprooted and reformed.
We see this same kind of warped thinking with “sexual predators” where the matter is accentuated beyond reason and used to justify changes to laws (which, in this case, tend toward the loss of presumption of innocence and the violation of due process).
These things, of course, are not about protection or justice. They are about increasing the power of those who would act as lords over us.
Thanks for the article :)
Great article. I’ve had similar thoughts myself. When we say that all men are endowed by their Creator with rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we shouldn’t make a distinction as to their citizenship.
There is one distinction I’d have to make between criminals and terrorists and, if you’re observant, there’s a slippery-slope thing going on with those terms. The current administration is wanting to suggest that Tea Partiers and people who have Ron Paul bumper stickers are terrorists, but not Islamic jihadists.
Terrorism is a strategy. It’s one facet of a military doctrine called “asymmetrical warfare.” It is a way to engage and win against an adversary that has a superior technological and numerical advantage. Thus a “terrorist” may well be a freedom fighter, a revolutionary, a counter-revolutionary, an member of a guerrilla insurgency, etc.
In warfare, there are two types of targets: counterforce and countervalue. Counterforce targets are military installations, weapons systems, command and control facilities, military-industrial factories, etc. The purpose of a strike on a counterforce target is to diminish the adversary’s military capability. Countervalue targets are such things as cities, neighborhoods, and population centers. The purpose of striking countervalue targets is to break an enemy’s will to fight. Firebombing Dresden and dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are examples of countervalue strikes. The vast scattering of mines in Afghanistan or the setting afire of oil wells by Saddam Hussein are other examples.
Terrorism is just one aspect of assymetrical warfare. Terrorism hits both types of targets, but is asymmetrical in that it focuses on countervalue targets. Our revolutionary forefathers engaged in asymmetrical warfare, because they couldn’t expect to defeat the British in the traditional combat of the time. Brigham Young engaged in asymmetrical warfare when he ordered the Valley’s defenders to burn the wagons and supplies of Johnston’s army, but not to harm the troops when they were approaching. We wouldn’t consider any of these actions “terrorism” today.
There is a distinct difference in the approach of progressives and conservatives on the proper response to the USA being targeted by asymmetrical warfare. Conservatives have regarded it as a military issue to be addressed with military force, strategy, and doctrine. Liberal progressives see it as a law-enforcement issue.
The current administration appears to posturing in such a manner as to declare political opposition “terrorists” and deny them their Constitutional rights. It’s alarming.
Well Connor, you’re about 100 years too late with this post. Ezra Taft Benson waved the flag of the Constitution during his time, but the LDS memebers largely ignored him. Like you, this is not the country I want to pass on to my daughter or the posterity of the good and decent American people, but I am sorry to say that it is the country we grew up in. We were just too blind and uneducated to recognize it. In any case, the Constitution of the United States does apply to all people within her boarders, just as you stated.
Paul
Well presented and thought out. The two-year old with the toy analogy was spot on–Like only we have sole possession of a universal principle of inalienable rights?
I could not vehemently disagree more with the Great Boyack’s, Romney’s, and Reid’s of today. All men are endowed by their Creator with rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we shouldn’t make a distinction as to their citizenship. Really? Terrorist are exercising their endowed rights by detesting our Constitution and murdering; freely choosing to plot against our way of life, and pursuing their happiness and maybe even getting rewarded with several virgins as well. Not to mention the secret combination’s we are supporting in our land by DINO’s, RINO’s ad MINO’s). I believe this kind of thinking caused President Benson to utter these words to the saints in a confrence report:
If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers – normally good Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free – Americans who have been lulled away into a false security.” (April 1968, General Conference Report)
…One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and just for all who FIGHT for it!!! FREEDOM isn’t free.
Darren,
If I understand where you are coming from, you’re missing the point about giving terrorists due process. It’s not so much for their sake, as it is for our and the innocent.
Without due process as it pertains to constitutional and inalienable rights, our high standards for justice would degenerate back into the dark ages of applying trial by ordeal to determine innocence or guilt, or worse, a appointed with doctor to sniff out guilt by using arcane magic.
That’s the biggest danger we face with terrorism–Not the physical harm by random bomb attacks, but giving in to knee-jerk reflex to abandon our principles and become an armed camp under martial law with suspended freedoms. The next step is to practice tactics to arrest, convict, and punish people on the flimsy evidence “Just to make Sure”. The current “No fly” list is an Stalinist example of this. In fact, expect to see more “lists” come about in the name of national security.
When the US supported the corrupt South Korean and Vietnamese leaders in the 1950′s and 1960′s, by giving those leaders equipment and training for security purposes, guess what they did? They used that not to guard against Communist terrorists or spies, but to settle old political or personal scores.
So unless we apply to the same rules to the bad guys, we will end up becoming bad guys by our methods.
Wow. I just got lumped in with Mitt Romney and Harry Reid…
At least you’re “Great”.
“I could not vehemently disagree more with the Great Boyack’s, Romney’s, and Reid’s of today.” — Darren
I am afraid that I don’t understand your disagreement. Can you please clarify?
Paul
Connor, your title is trying too hard to be catchy and to push people’s buttons. People come here and read what is posted whether is has a catchy title or not; you are not selling news papers here.
I think your thesis has a lot of merit, that the constitution applies to the federal government in all scenarios and is not suspended when the federal government is having dealings with non-citizens.
Where you fall down though, and potentially do a disservice to your readers, is in conflating the declaration of independence with the constitution. They are not the same thing. They are not even the same type of thing.
The declaration of independence is a profound philosophical statement on the nature of the relationship between peoples, their governments and God. The constitution (when adhered to) creates and regulates a governmental structure intended to operate in harmony with the principles of the declaration. One is the supreme law of the land, the other though not the law of the land, can be argued to reflect the supreme law of God (though some think that perhaps the declaration should be the law of the land as well, google “declarationism”).
A better title for your piece might have been:
The constitution applies to the federal government, The declaration of independence applies to all governments and all people everywhere (even terrorists).
… Just as controversial, and it speaks a little more directly to your point.
(“The constitution applies to the federal government” how many beltway insiders would have their buttons pushed by that little gem?)
Regards
Jeff
As an ex lds and an atheist at the moment, the problem i have with the constitution is it’s basis on ‘God given rights’ This is why it doesn’t work in my opinion. All of the people don’t believe in God,so they can’t really believe in the constitution. What the world needs is a constitution based on being human.
Tim
Other than the “God given rights” (Which One could just as easily just change it to “Natural rights”) phrase in the Constitution, what in the the document do you object to?
Please give some examples of how you would improve it.
Historically, humanistic government contracts with citizens resulted in the horrors perpetrated by the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and others who treated their people as mere raw inventory to be sacrificed for the good of the state. Those in the state always end up being more “equal than others” at the expense of the masses.
It makes me profoundly sad that people in our country – the great nation of liberty (well, it used to be anyway) – could actually hold the belief that some do not deserve due process. We’re supposed to lock people in jail and throw away the key without even considering any evidence? They don’t even get to know why they’re in there in the first place? Really, folks? Really? There’s NO POSSIBLE way someone might have made a mistake?
I’ve met many people at tea parties, while holding up “down with big government” signs, tell me how awesome it is that we are bombing the crap out of other countries, that everyone in Guantanamo clearly deserves their fate, waterboarding is the most awesome thing ever invented, anyone even accused of being a terrorist should be shot, etc. I honestly and truly do not understand this viewpoint. I pray that no one they love or know ever gets accused of being a terrorist. The state loves people like this, who lap up the propoganda unquestioningly.
Connor,
You need to re-read the US Constitution! The Preamble:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ”
As you can see, it has been written ONLY for citizens of this nation call THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
And of course, the BILL OF RIGHTS are part of OUR Constitution do apply to “OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY”… But I do not believe our Constitution blankets the entire world. It has been quoted over and over that our founders warned us against “foreign entanglements.”
I agree with you that U.S. CITIZEN TERRORIST are fully protected by OUR/THEIR constitution. All US Citizen TERRORISTS should be mirandized etc. But to state that FOREIGN TERRORIST are to be mirandized and given full due-process and jury-of- their-peer-protections, I think you cannot make a constitutional case. You would be forced to allow them to be tried in their own country BY THEIR OWN PEERS.
And yes, our rights come from our CREATOR, but yet, each nation must form their own constitution to protect these creator given rights. As Joseph Smith once said, (paraphrased) if foreign nations want the goodies our nations offers us…they can become a member our Common Wealth…(now my summary of his words) and if they do not want to become part of our nation, they can take a FLYING LEAP!
http://www.4xtreme.org
Darren-
No one is saying the terrorists’ actions should be condoned or that they should not be held accountable or punished. Just that they have a right to due process. If they can be held indefinitely without trial then what about you when you (hypothetically, of course) become labeled a terrorist by the government because you oppose it’s overreach and abuse, just as the Founders opposed the crown?
Tim
If you don’t believe in God given inalienable rights, then would you accept natural rights or rights inherent to humanity? If you are an atheist that believes in freedom then does it matter how our Founders chose to word it? If you would like to say men create these rights to protect themselves then you can also say men may choose to rescind these rights for whatever reason they think they can justify. Surely you can agree with the basic premise that all men have these rights and they cannot be taken away; to do so is a crime against humanity.
Your premise is a good start. One problem is found in Article VI Paragraph 2 of the constitution: “…[A]ll Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;”
As a signatory to the Geneva Convention treaties the US is bound to treat terrorists captured on the field of battle according to the rules of those treaties, not with the due process stipulated by our constitution.
@Edward Noonan, does the Constitution authorize the Federal government to withhold due process from foreigners?
Skyler wrote:
———————————————————————————————————
@Edward Noonan, does the Constitution authorize the Federal government to withhold due process from foreigners?
———————————————————————————————————
I believe the US Constitution is pretty clear on our Constitutional mandates on home terrorists:
“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”
In my opinion, the words SUPPRESS AND REPEL means it is our duty to BE TOUGH on home-grown terrorists. However foreign terrorists will probably get the gift of a swift death and prompt burial. Whether it is a foreign invasion of an army of many or an army of one (terrorist), the “REPEL INVASIONS” remedy can be a swift and deadly response.
The Constitution further states that Congress has the duty:
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; ”
It is my opinion that TERRORISM would fall into the category fo OFFENCES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS;”
FINDLAW.COM gives this definition:
Definition of Offenses
“The fact that the Constitutional Convention considered it necessary to give Congress authority to define offenses against the law of nations does not mean that in every case Congress must undertake to codify that law or mark its precise boundaries before prescribing punishments for infractions thereof. An act punishing ”the crime of piracy, as defined by the law of nations” was held to be an appropriate exercise of the constitutional authority to ”define and punish” the offense, since it adopted by reference the sufficiently precise definition of International Law. ”
“1390 Similarly, in Ex parte Quirin, ”
“1391 the Court found that by the reference in the Fifteenth Article of War to ”offenders or offenses that . . . by the law of war may be triable by such military commissions . . .,” Congress had ”exercised its authority to define and punish offenses against the law of nations by sanctioning, within constitutional limitations, the jurisdiction of military commissions to try persons for offenses which, according to the rules and precepts of the law of nations, and more particularly the law of war, are cognizable by such tribunals.””
- – -
As you can see, our founding fathers seemed to indicate that there were some CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS in dealing with OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS but the matter was to be tried by military commissions.
To answer your question, ‘does the Constitution authorize the FED Gov to withhold due process from foreigners?’ … Foreigners [NO] – - Foreign Terrorist [YES]!
@Edward Noonan, you wrote “To answer your question, ‘does the Constitution authorize the FED Gov to withhold due process from foreigners?’ … Foreigners [NO] – – Foreign Terrorist [YES]!”
The problem with this statement is that due process is necessary to determine if the foreigner is in fact a terrorist.
MC, ” If you don’t believe in God given inalienable rights, then would you accept natural rights or rights inherent to humanity?” Yes.
” If you are an atheist that believes in freedom then does it matter how our Founders chose to word it?” Yes it most certainly does.
” Surely you can agree with the basic premise that all men have these rights and they cannot be taken away; to do so is a crime against humanity” Who are the biggest criminals if this was the premise?
“Surely you can agree with the basic premise that all men have these rights and they cannot be taken away; to do so is a crime against humanity.”
The problem atheists face is that if they reject belief in God because it cannot be objectively proven, to be consistent they must also reject all moral values and everything else that cannot be proven objectively. To a moral relativist, by definition there are no crimes against humanity–”crime” is relative to a particular standard of morality. Fortunately for everyone, those who claim to reject all morals usually do not actually reject morals in the way they live their lives, and those who I have known (who claim to reject morality), do not truly reject morality in their heart of hearts.
@ Edward Noonan – Your quotes actually prove Connor’s point, and shows that your argument is incorrect. Ex Parte Quirin specifically notes that military commissions are to be done “within constitutional limitations” (as you quoted). If you read the Constitution, you’ll see that this means such powers can only be activated by the congress, not the executive (recall that the Supreme Court struck down Lincoln’s attempt to declare martial law in his war on the Constitution, pointing out that only congress has that authority). This was understood until Bush’s war on the Constitution.
As noted by Judge Andrew Napolitano in “The Case Against Military Tribunals”:
“In Ex Parte Quirin, the Supreme Court case that eventually upheld the military trial of these Germans — after they had been tried and after six of the eight defendants had been executed — the court declared that a formal declaration of war is the legal prerequisite to the government’s use of the tools of war. The federal government adhered to this principle of law from World War II until Bush’s understanding of the Constitution animated government policy.”
Your findlaw.com quote is also irrelevant to your argument as only congress has the authority to prescribe punishments for the crimes listed, and that does not mean congress can prescribe punishments which abrogate the Constitution or specifically, the Bill of Rights, which requires a trial by jury. “Supress[ing] insurrections and repell[ing] invasions” is also a congressional power.
To understand more about the legal analysis, read Judge Napolitano’s full article at: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/29/opinion/la-oe-napolitano29-2009nov29/2
@ Tim
“One is the supreme law of the land, the other though not the law of the land”
That’s incorrect. The Declaration of Independence is law as it was ratified by the legislature in one of the first acts of congress after the Constitution came into effect.
Nate, i’m not sure why you seemed to have quoted me?i didn’t make that comment!
You also wrote” The problem atheists face is that if they reject belief in God because it cannot be objectively proven, to be consistent they must also reject all moral values and everything else that cannot be proven objectively.”
The beauty of not being in a religion is that i’m allowed to think what i like,i dont have to be what you see as consistent, to any philosophy or dogma.I’m a philisophical experientualist with an ever evolving perspective !
Sorry Tim, should’ve said @ Jeff on that last quote
No, the Constitution does not apply to terrorists. The Constitution was not meant to be a suicide pact nor a tool of self-destruction. No one who is trying to destroy the Constitution and enslave us deserves the rights and protections guaranteed by the Constitution. That would seem to be a logical and self-evident truth.