Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

It's not the view of any administration. The client was Norwegian-Chilean. Foreigners not in the US don't have A right to counsel (which is the constitutional basis of attorney client privilege in the US).

And I'd argue that's the way it should be. Every time courts declare something unconstitutional, they use up limited political capital. I don't think defending the "human rights" of non Americans is a valid use of that political capital.

View on HN

I do not believe this interpretation is correct. In a criminal proceeding in the US, a defendant--whether a citizen or not--has a right to counsel, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution.

As this is not a criminal prosecution, the right to counsel does not necessarily apply. Under present law, border searches are quite different from normal searches, even for US citizens.

I didn't say "citizen". I said "foreigner not in the US". I was under the impression that the guy was not in the US.

But still, revoking a lawyer's visa for defending someone even elsewhere is pretty sketchy if you ask me.

Extremely sketchy. Not illegal.

You realize how ridiculous this sounds to any ally or trading partner of the US, right? What US authorities are saying is basically that non-citizens of the US do not have basic human rights.

I recall that the current administration reserves for itself the right to assassinate US citizens (and indeed, non US citizens) without trial, and has done so. Everything else pales in comparison.

Actually what it says is a lot more pernicious than that:

Sure, if you are in the US you have a right to legal representation regarding trials, but if you are outside the US, the US reserves the right to say whether you have a right to legal representation. It's worse than saying you don't have basic rights.

Now, maybe the lawyer in question was actually doing something illegal or highly questionable. However we will never know at this point.

He's a high-class, nationally famous lawyer. I seriously doubt he'd do anything illegal.

Whether or not the client is a citizen and inside the bounds of the US is irrelevant. If they're being legally challenged by the US criminal system, they should have legal counsel.

What you describe is basically reinforcing the morals behind Guantanamo - 'as long as they never get here, we don't have to treat them properly'.

It's hard to understand the translation, but I understood it to imply that the client was not being challenged by the U.S. criminal system. The client was norweigian-chilean, accused of threatening norwegian dignitaries. I'd assume the client was in norway being charged by the norwegians.

> Foreigners not in the US don't have A right to counsel (which is the constitutional basis of attorney client privilege in the US).

Do you have a cite for this? I know that there's no right to counsel in civil trials, and this includes immigration courts (say in a deportation hearing), but thought that criminal trials do guarantee right to counsel regardless of citizenship.

Edit: sorry, I misread what you wrote. It's totally reasonable and doesn't deserve downvotes.

FWIW, web searching does seem to indicate that there's no explicit constitutional basis for attorney client privilege, and that it's just provided for by US (and often, state) law.

Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (holding that noncitizens charged with crimes are protected by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments)

Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 ((concurrence arguing that noncitizens are protected by the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments)

Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266

Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 161

etc. The only holding otherwise is the 4th amendment one of a number of appeals courts.

Thanks. I kind of assumed that those protections extended to non-citizens, but it's nice to have actual case law.

I'm not sure but pretty sure they do. There are very few laws in the US discriminating against citizenship.

I didn't say citizen. I said foreigners not in the US. E.g. A yemeni citizen in yemen.

That's probably the most confusing way to describe that.

Why don't you just say a someone who's not American?

Because citizenship and physical presence are both elements. A foreigner on US soil has rights, as does a US citizen on foreign soil. Hence "foreigner not on US soil."

My understanding from the article was that the client was not American, not on US soil, and was not being charged by the US.

Well that's disappointing.

Three cheers for american exceptionism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com