U.S. Supreme Court Decision In 1891 Denies Obama Administration Claim That We Can Offer Constitutional Rights To Foreign Combatants

Since January 2009,  we keep hearing from the illegally ensconced Obama Administration as well as  Leftists, Progressives, Communists, Muslims, and other habitual liars of how the Muslim Terrorists have Constitutional Rights the same as us.  The United States Supreme Court Decision “In Re Ross” 140 U.S. 453 (1891) has laid out for us that such a notion as foreign terrorists or combatant against the United States as having U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights protections is a LIE of the most heinous kind upon the American People.   "In re Ross" tells us in clear and in no unmistakeable terms that the United States “Constitution can have no operation in another country”.  And if that is true for a U.S. Citizen not aboard a U.S. flagship or in a U.S. Embassy or U.S. Consulate, (which are by legal definition considered virtually the same as U.S. Soil) but in a foreign nation, it is doubly so that it would extend to include enemy combatants or aliens of any type, even were they brought onto U.S. soil by capture.  For example, during the U.S. involvement of World War II from 1941-1945,  German and Japanese prisoners of War  were housed on U.S. Soil, protected only by the Geneva Convention and having NO United States Constitutional Rights whatsoever.  There is no material difference between the military personnel and the Muslim Terrorist today in NOT having U.S. Constitutional protections.  The Muslim terrorist has LESS rights as a non-uniformed combatants and is actually over-generously treated at Guantanamo Bay with far too many privileges as it is.

In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453 (1891) at 463-464 

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/140/453/case.html

we read that

 

Page 140 U. S. 463

... "The intense hostility of the people of Moslem faith to all other sects, and particularly to Christians, affected all their intercourse and all proceedings had in their tribunals. Even the rules of evidence adopted by them placed those of different faith on unequal grounds in any controversy with them. For this cause, and by reason of the barbarous and cruel punishments inflicted in those countries, and the frequent use of torture to enforce confession from parties accused, it was a matter of deep interest to Christian governments of withdraw the trial of their subjects, when charged with the commission of a public offense, from the arbitrary and despotic action of the local officials. Treaties conferring such jurisdiction upon these consuls were essential to the peaceful residence of Christians within those countries and the successful prosecution of commerce with their people.

The treatymaking power vested in our government extends to all proper subjects of negotiation with foreign governments. It can, equally with any of the former or present governments of Europe, make treaties providing for the exercise of judicial authority in other countries by its officers appointed to reside therein.

We do not understand that any question is made by counsel as to its power in this respect. His objection is to the legislation by which such treaties are carried out, contending that so far as crimes of a felonious character are concerned, the same protection and guaranty against an undue accusation or an unfair trial secured by the Constitution to citizens of the United States at home should be enjoyed by them abroad. 

Page 140 U. S. 464

In none of the laws which have been passed by Congress to give effect to treaties of the kind has there been any attempt to require indictment by a grand jury before one can be called upon to answer for a public offense of that grade committed in those countries, or to secure a jury on the trial of the offense. Yet the laws on that subject have been passed without objection to their constitutionality. Indeed, objection on that ground was never raised in any quarter, so far as we are informed, until a recent period.

It is now, however, earnestly pressed by counsel for the petitioner, but we do not think it tenable. By the Constitution, a government is ordained and established "for the United States of America," and not for countries outside of their limits. The guarantees it affords against accusation of capital or infamous crimes, except by indictment or presentment by a grand jury, and for an impartial trial by a jury when thus accused apply only to citizens and others within the United States or who are brought there for trial for alleged offenses committed elsewhere, and not to residents or temporary sojourners abroad. Cook v. United States,138 U. S. 157, 138 U. S. 181.

  The Constitution can have no operation in another country. When, therefore, the representatives or officers of our government are permitted to exercise authority of any kind in another country, it must be on such conditions as the two countries may agree, the laws of neither one being obligatory upon the other."

If America in World War II would not even remotely view a German Nazi Spy from abroad as having U.S. Constitutional Rights, nor them us; then why the hell is Eric Holder and Obama pushing for us to have Al Qaeda and various foreign terrorists to be treated as having U.S. Constitutional Rights except to aid and abet the enemies of the United States?