They weren't a US citizen they where Australian so the judge didn't need probable cause.
Why do so many people think that human rights flow from US citizenship? That's not how the Constitution works. The 4th Amendment to the Constitution doesn't say anything about citizenship:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Bill of Rights is a set of limitations on the government, saying that the government is not allowed to do these things. It doesn't say anything about who they might hypothetically be doing them to, just that they cannot do it.
So regardless of your citizenship, the government can't prevent you from practicing your religion, can't throw you in jail without a trial, and they can't search you without a warrant. This applies to any actions the US government takes, regardless of who they're directed against and where.
That's clearly untrue. Otherwise we wouldn't have the CIA as an organization to spy on foreigners.
It is true you don't need to be a US citizen to have protection. However, you do need to be under the jurisdiction of the US (on US soil). Otherwise, the US Constitutional rights don't apply to you.
No, the applicability of Constitutional rights outside the US has yet to be completely settled. The Supreme Court discussed that issue somewhat in Hernandez v. Mesa in the current session. I suggest listening to the oral arguments on oyez.org. It is a sad and infuriating, but also fascinating case.
The CIA doesn't feed or perform as a part of the United States Justice system (parallel construction or the occasional slip aside).
Therefore, using it as a argument for why due process is only restricted to a certain group is a bit of a non-sequitur. A case against a foreign person still has to be conducted through proper channels, either with Constitutional protections in force if the U.S. has ultimate jurisdiction, or through diplomatic channels to ensure conformance with whatever other country considers due process or actionable if the U.S. doesn't have ultimate jurisdiction. This doesn't really negate the GP's point in the way you may have been intending to.
While the government technically isn't allowed to do some of these things, the way our judicial system works, there's no lever with which these can be stopped (other than at the ballot box, and it seems no one cares enough to vote based on this). In particular, what little controversy there was surrounding the Edward Snowden revelations showed us that the Courts don't recognize any of us as having standing to pursue the question in court.
The meaning of that amendment turns on the phrase "the people". Who, exactly, are they? Many constitutional cases have determined that you are a member of "the people" by being either physically in the US, or outside but a US citizen.
This touches on the Guantanamo Bay thing, too, where people are being held without trial. The gov't position is that they're enemy combatants, and thus covered by the rules of war.
I don't buy that, but there you go. It just goes to show that the people (whoever they might be) need to be continually vigilant - in a sense, government is always the adversary.
The sixteenth amendment to the US constitution says:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Are you saying that the US congress has the legal authority to collect income taxes from every human on earth?
>Do we really want an ally that has proven them selves as totalitarian as China and is determined to spy on us?
The US went through a judicial process and didn't just imprison or delete this person's account ( I know this isn't a US national), but this is a false equivalency to say that this process is even close to China when China currently has over a million prisoners in concentration camps.
Places like gitmo aside, almost everyone goes through a judicial process before they're locked up. China has judicial processes too. It's a question of the integrity of those processes.
If you'd like to understand the integrity of the US process, please read The New Jim Crow. It's not at all clear the US process is better than China's.
The argument is that the US justice system uses pressure of plea bargains to put millions of innocent people in prison, financial pressure to keep millions of people from getting justice, etc.
The level of injustice seems at least similar.
You're right the reasons are different. But until we fix our courts, we don't quite have the moral high ground here.
China doesn't need to keep them locked up. China has the largest rate of organ transplants in the world, the highest rates of executions (actual number a state secret) yet has low rates of organ donors with trial registration schemes only starting within the last decade. Guess where they get the organs from.
Journalists investigating the suppression of Falun Gong estimated that approximately 60,000 convicted members were executed and their organs harvested. People are routinely arrested and never heard from again. In some cases families have been told a relative was executed years previously, but often they hear nothing at all.
In 2008 China's own deputy health minister estimated over 60% of transplant organs were sourced from prisoners, but Chinese officials have clamped up about this in recent years. They have occasionally said that this source of organs has been excluded, but there's no way to verify this as rates of donor registration aren't known, rates of executions are a state secret and none of the people or facilities involved are known or open to investigations.
> We kill suspects whose names we know, and whose names we don’t; we kill the guilty and the not guilty; we kill men, but also women and children; we kill by day and by night; we fire missiles at confirmed visual targets, but also at cellphone numbers we hope belong to targets.
> In 2014, former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden said in a public debate, “We kill people based on metadata.”
> According to multiple reports and leaks, death-by-metadata could be triggered, without even knowing the target’s name, if too many derogatory checks appear on their profile. “Armed military aged males” exhibiting suspicious behavior in the wrong place can become targets, as can someone “seen to be giving out orders.” Such mathematics-based assassinations have come to be known as “signature strikes.”
I'm amazed at just how little press coverage that is getting. Some public figure says something that's not sufficiently woke and it's on the front page of every news site in the country. China gets caught putting religious and ethnic minorities into camps and harvests their organs and most Americans haven't heard about it.
This is what leads me to believe the information is shaky at best. The press has no issues reporting “bad and scary” news about China since it sells, and they report on the re-education camps all the time. However, if they are shying away from the “organ harvesting” story, then it’s probably suspect.
It's getting reported on by major outlets, just not very loudly or prominently. There have been articles in the Guardian, The Daily Mail, Reuters, Forbes and others. The press frequently gives China a pass on things that any Western country would be pilloried for.
I hear this claim repeated a lot, but has anybody got a good source for it?
All I can see are extreme news sources (Breitbart) and NBC reporting on https://chinatribunal.com, and while I know nothing about the chinatribunal, its name somewhat implies a clear stance at the outset.
Particularly in relation to the Uyghur muslims, I can't find any evidence that they're having their organs harvested
This is reporting the same china tribunal mentioned in my OP. Interestingly, the interviewee mentioned by the Guardian here 'did not see any direct evidence of forced organ removal'; if the tribunal heard evidence from people with direct experience of organ removal, I'm surprised they were not quoted. It seems like I may have to dig deeper into the tribunal's actual report to gain more insight.
> The China Tribunal has been initiated by the International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China (ETAC), an international not for profit organisation, with headquarters in Australia and National Committees in the UK, USA, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
I find the fact that the media doesn’t report this, but they do report the re-education camps, suggests the sources aren’t very solid.
It seems that you created a new name just to doubt organ harvesting by China. You say the media doesn't report it, but a single search for china organ harvesting turns up this:
Yeah agreed. It is terrible that US has the largest prison population and it is also terrible that China has harvested organs and puts Uyghur Muslims in concentration camps. They are terrible in different dimensions and it would serve no clear purpose to me to try and figure out which is the “more terrible” one to focus the criticism on to the cost of ignoring the other.
The people you mentioned in the US went through a judicial proceeding which resulted in their imprisonment. We can debate the merits (or lack therefore) of the laws broken which resulted in their imprisonment, but the point is there was a process and a review in place before said people were sent off to prison.
Contrast that situation to China. China has over 1 million Uyghur Muslims in concentration camps for non-criminal, political reasons. Most (if not all) of the said Uyghur people imprisoned were given no judicial review, and have no access to legal counsel.
God damn I hate the whataboutism on HN I see with regards to China - it is really rampant. It may shatter some folks' liberal sentiments but the US really is not the worst country on the block (planet), by a long-long margin.
The constitution does not explicitly grant due process to non-citizens, but statutes and judicial rulings since have generally enforced that non-citizens have most of the same rights as citizens when it comes to criminal investigations. I don't think we know whether or not there was probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. We don't even know what sort of search order was granted. For example, maybe the account owner is not the subject of the investigation, but the account is believed to contain information that would be relevant nonetheless.
This is a complex topic, and is especially unclear when the person is not on US soil, so saying "judicial rulings since have generally enforced..." is not really accurate.
Exactly, and it really diminishes the plight of the billion plus people in China, the citizens of Hong Kong who were sold out by the UK, and the horrific situation forced upon the Uighurs.
They weren't a US citizen they where Australian so the judge didn't need probable cause.
It is perfectly legal and that should make any foreigner question their relationship with America.
Do we really want an ally that has proven them selves as totalitarian as China and is determined to spy on us?