Does Constitution and Bill of Rights Apply to Non-Citizens or just US Citizens

The ACLU is angry at some US senators who are trying to push legislation that civilian authorities should consult intelligence leaders when taking suspected terrorists into custody. The ACLU claims that this legislation is applying the constitution on a case by case basis to each individual. At the core of this debate, is whether or not the Constitution and the Bill of Rights applies to non-citizens as well as US citizens.

The reason this is such a heated debate is because both sides have good arguments and good points. However, deep critical analysis is required to fully understand the issue and the constitution.

The Bill of Rights is introduced in order to prevent people from being wrongfully punished without evidence and due process. It also excludes people from being accused for merely presenting speech, religion, or assembly.

Most Democrats will argue that because the courts would be used to determine whether someone is a citizen or not, assuming non-citizen would be incorrect. Because without trial, how can you know whether this person is a citizen or not. Therefore, they argue that the Bill of Rights applies to everyone.

Democrats are probably right if we are to prevent innocent people from being jailed or killed. However, the question becomes do we give them their rights as the constitution says by risking many soldiers' lives from capturing some terrorist in some foreign country? What if they won't go down without a fight.

We do apply the bill of rights on a case by case basis when dealing with terrorists abroad. Since they are in a war with us, and their battlefield is everywhere---it becomes hard to determine when we can use rules of war and when we have to apply the bill of rights.

Further, if we were to drag every terrorist to court, many of them would walk free, because in order to prove their guilt, we would have to reveal identity of intelligence officers, reveal methods of how we found them or intercepted their communications/codes, and then use evidence of how they are connected to a terror cell even though there might always be reasonable doubt where a lawyer can argue that they were not meeting about an attack plan but they were meeting because they were old school buddies. This is why some senators/representatives would prefer you take them into military court, where they can be judged by someone who understands how intelligence works.

Addendum 1/8/2012:
This is why when Obama shut down Guantanamo prison camp---congress voted to stop the funding of prisoner transfer to the mainland, which essentially was a loophole that stopped the shutting down of Guantanamo. It hurts Obama's reputation, because he had kept a campaign promise, but congress has forced it open and he is powerless to do anything about it. Congress has constituents that believe they don't want terrorists in their prisons near where they live.

The Flaw in the Argument

If everyone is granted rights under the Bill of Rights, then the US has absolutely no authority to wage war. Because in war, your soldiers are judging that an enemy is guilty of attempted murder and therefore the soldier must use self-defense and eliminate the threat. So I think certain exceptions exist due to the nature of war.

Harry Browne wrote some interesting arguments in his paper on the web arguing that the Bill of Rights applies to the government, and therefore, it dictates what the government can or cannot do. This is true, but it is limited by the fact that it applies to those accused of a crime within US borders and they must be either US citizens or they might be deported.

If it applied to everyone as Harry Browne of LewRockwell.com argues, well then the United States can simply accuse any Russian citizen or Swiss citizen of a crime without him/her ever setting foot in the United States. It means that any war the United States wages is against the Constitution because enemy combatants did not receive due process.

Unfortunately, our national security and the reality of our world do not allow for such an idealistic planet where the Bill of Rights applies to everyone.

If the Bill of Rights applies to non-citizens of the US, then most Democrats would avidly defend the Iraq War since citizens of Iraq had their bill of rights threatened.

There is no debating this. If someone has waged a war on the United States and is threatening lives, then he may be labeled an enemy combatant and tried in military tribunal (with evidence of course).

Harry Browne offers an example nightmare scenario where this may be quite scary:

It's an appeal to your fear that maybe one day the federal government will come to your house and label you a terrorist and then hold you in a jail and interrogate and torture you, because you know, intelligence officers just enjoy torturing people suspected of terrorism without any evidence just because some guy in your neighborhood complained.

First, Let me clarify something. Unless someone is absolutely sure you have intelligence that could threaten American lives, they will not torture or interrogate you.

There is no such scenario where someone captures a random terrorist and the intelligence officer assumes that this random terrorist has the whereabouts of Bin Laden.

Second, the US doesn't interrogate you because your neighbor was given a reward if he turned in some terrorists. I'm pretty sure that's just some sort of urban legend. However, there were cases where Uyghurs were sent to Guantanamo because China claimed they were Islamic terrorists when they were simply protesting China's rule over their people. It's despicable indeed that US would ever rely on another country's intelligence.

Third, why would an intelligence officer interrogate someone as a terrorist without multiple sources confirming your connection to a terrorist organization. Do they not have consciences? They're just evil machines that attack anyone that "might" have information?

So to answer your question: Does Bill of Rights apply to non-citizens?

Yes, it applies to ANYONE inside the borders of the United States. Outside the US, it may not apply to citizens or non-citizens, because it is difficult to determine who/what you are (citizen or non-citizen) before you are put in court.

Essentially, the constitution is a limitation on the government itself. So technically, the bill of rights applies to anyone anywhere---but due to the nature of war, we don't apply it to enemy combatants of a battlefield (a soldier shoots someone like as if he is judge, jury, executioner).

So the question now is, well since terrorists are attacking us wherever they are in their global war against us, is everywhere a battlefield? Since there is no defined battlefield, does that mean our soldiers can shoot them wherever they find them?

I think so. I think if there is great evidence that someone is a criminal, but that there is no way to haul someone to court without risking many soldiers' lives, as is the situation, then our soldiers should be able to shoot them.

Addendum:

For example, when Obama found Osama, he wanted to capture him. So he sent Navy Seals on stealth helicopters to capture him. Unfortunately, a firefight began and Osama was killed. I know the intention was to capture, because a drone strike wasn't used.

One helicopter was damaged, secret technologies were revealed to the world. Some navy seals could have been killed. That is the risk involved with trying to haul terrorists to court. So sometimes it might be better to just drone strike.

It's definitely a moral dilemma.

A summary of these rights include: