Individual rights are not processes of checks and balances. Those rights can be withdrawn in a jiffy, whenever required or convenient. What good does the right to bear arms do you as an individual when you're deemed a dangerous criminal, or as a group when you're deemed a terrorist organization? What good does the right to free speech do you if your speech is inconsequential?
> The fact that if a piece of evidence is acquired against you in an unlawful way it cannot be used against you in court as a US citizen
The US has repeatedly manufactured and framed political dissidents when it has felt politically threatened historically. Those rights you're talking about were useless to them.
No they can't. It's incredibly hard to amend the Constitution of the United States. That's by design. You need 2/3 vote in both the House and the Senate and 3/4 of all states to ratify an amendment in order to change it.
You can't be deemed "a dangerous criminal" without having actually been convicted in a court of law by a jury of your peers. And even then, there's appeals, pardons, etc.
> What good does the right to free speech do you if your speech is inconsequential?
Speech is never inconsequential. Even a one on one conversation can have a profound impact on another person. It's up to you to get your ideas out there and to compete in a diverse marketplace of ideas. That's the way it works.
> The US has repeatedly manufactured and framed political dissidents when it has felt politically threatened historically. Those rights you're talking about were useless to them.
Not generally, no. But sure, there are corrupt people in Government, no doubt. And that corruption has even been levied against a duly elected president of the United States (Trump vs the Obama FBI/CIA spygate). The existence of imperfection in the system is not proof of the system's uselessness.
Look up COINTELPRO. They used a combination of framing, deceit, labeling people terrorists and criminals in order to systematically undermine a political movement (and still do, covertly). That's not even talking about how they operate abroad. Individual rights means nothing when the state deems you a threat of some kind.
>You can't be deemed "a dangerous criminal" without having actually been convicted in a court of law by a jury of your peers. And even then, there's appeals, pardons, etc
"On August 31, 2006, al-Awlaki was arrested with four others on charges of kidnapping a Shiite teenager for ransom, and participating in an al-Qaeda plot to kidnap a U.S. military attaché.[50][80] He was imprisoned in 2006 and 2007.[56] He was interviewed around September 2007 by two FBI agents with regard to the 9/11 attacks and other subjects. John Negroponte, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, told Yemeni officials he did not object to al-Awlaki's detention."
"n December 2008, al-Awlaki sent a communique to the Somali terrorist group, al-Shabaab, congratulating them."
"In March 2010, a tape featuring al-Awlaki was released in which he urged Muslims residing in the United States to attack their country of residence."
Look I'm no fan of drone strikes in general, but if you leave the United States to go join a terrorist organization and incite violence against the U.S. and other innocent people in other countries like Somalia..you clearly have lost Constitutional protection. We don't give trials for foreign terrorists or armies, that's a given.
>Look I'm no fan of drone strikes in general, but if you leave the United States to go join a terrorist organization and incite violence against the U.S. and other innocent people in other countries like Somalia..you clearly have lost Constitutional protection. We don't give trials for foreign terrorists or armies, that's a given.
So if I accuse you of a bad enough crime due process doesn't matter? Seems like a pretty easy loophole to exploit. And even if you can justify stripping al-Awlaki of his rights, it's pretty hard to justify killing his US citizen 16 year old son.
He wasn't merely accused, he was living with Al Quaeda in Yemen. If I move in with Al-Quaeda in Yemen and incite acts of terrorism against America and other civilians in Yemen and Somalia, yes, it doesn't fucking matter. Any Navy SEAL is free to kill me if I ever do something that stupid and criminal. In fact, I'll even pre-posthumously thank him for his service.
>He wasn't merely accused, he was living with Al Quaeda in Yemen.
Without a trial this can only be considered an accusation. The US government claims this, many other people claim he was never part of a terrorist group. Living in Yemen is not a crime.
>incite acts of terrorism against America and other civilians in Yemen and Somalia, yes, it doesn't fucking matter.
Not only are the claims that he "incited terrorism" overblown, his right to free speech allows him to make such declarations.
> The fact that if a piece of evidence is acquired against you in an unlawful way it cannot be used against you in court as a US citizen
The US has repeatedly manufactured and framed political dissidents when it has felt politically threatened historically. Those rights you're talking about were useless to them.