Dumb question: Does a trial in a U.S. court mean that a prisoner must be on literal U.S. soil?

[EmilyAnne]

I can't seem to find the answer to this question.

[Exilednight]

1. The Constitution doesn't apply, and many legal scholars agree ........

on this point, unless you are physically on U.S. soil. The Supreme Court has actually weighed in on this with Cuban refugees seeking asylum.

If the Coast Guard stops them on the water, then they are allowed to send them directly back to Cuba - no questions, no hearings ......... nothing.

Once a person sets foot on US soil, then the rules change.

Here's another possibility. If the person is a US citizen, then they are entitled to a trial in a US court.

[HamdenRice]

3. Generally true, but there's one weird in between category -- "exclusion" or "excludable" aliens

If you get to this country's soil and are stopped at the port or airport, then even if you are inside the country you are treated as though you are outside the country. It's a legal make believe status called "excludable."

[Exilednight]

4. Technically, you are not on US soil until you clear customs. You're right, it is a .......

weird set of rules. The law is full of nuance, and deciphering that nuance is the job of the Supreme Court. We may not always agree with them, but for better or worse their word is the final one - and only one that really counts.

[treestar]

2. I think so

There was a case, Plyler v. Doe, in the Supreme Court in the 80s. Basically it said our Constitution applies here no matter who is involved, including illegal aliens. In other words, we don't say that being an illegal alien a person has no right to counsel or to a speedy trial if accused of a crime. That was established before that and those cases may cited in Plyler v. Doe - that case found we would not exclude illegal alien children from the schools - probably because that would punish them for their parents' actions.

There was also a case regarding some FBI agents operating in Mexico. They violated what would be someone's rights, but it was found the evidence could be used, because the constitution did not apply to their acts in Mexico.

Then the issues of being at war and what rules apply adds a whole new layer with the people in Afghanistan. And getting ourselves out of the illogical legal morass created by Ashcroft and Yoo and Gonzalez and Co.

[Uzybone]

5. Yes

A US court holds no jurisdiction in Lagos, Nigeria or anywhere else not on US soil.

If it did, whats to stop an Argentine court from trying US citizens in Cleveland?

[uponit7771]

6. Yes, but if they have an embassy or a base that counts as US soil too