Judge stikes down key part of Patriot Act

[Lanya]

I'm OK with it. I've said before, I want to know who these people are so I can stay away from them.
Both sets of t-shirt wearers, I mean.

[sirs]

I'm OK with it.

So, why would you think I wouldn't be??  The way you aked it made it quite transparent how terribly wrong it must be.....to me or likeminds

[Universe Prince]

Ummm, 1st amendment works both ways Prince.  But you know that.  Wearing a provocative shirt isn't silencing the 1st amendment rights of Journalists.  The 1st amendment provides the same rights to those who wish to be critical of journalists, especially when so many have already made up their minds regarding certain political positions, and skew their "reporting" in that direction

I'm not arguing that the people wearing the T-shirts should be censored or that the wearing of the T-shirts silences journalists. The point was the message of the T-shirts. The point is not to criticize people for being critical of journalists. The point is that there are people who, in point of fact, do want to censor journalists. I've seen in this very forum the suggestion that certain journalists should be tried for treason, not because the journalists were actually engaged in treason, but because the journalists were doing their jobs and some people were offended.

If fascism happens in this country, it won't be forced on us by the government. If it happens, it will happen because the people will have demanded the government make it happen. We will have no one to blame but ourselves.

[sirs]

Ummm, 1st amendment works both ways Prince.  But you know that.  Wearing a provocative shirt isn't silencing the 1st amendment rights of Journalists.  The 1st amendment provides the same rights to those who wish to be critical of journalists, especially when so many have already made up their minds regarding certain political positions, and skew their "reporting" in that direction

I'm not arguing that the people wearing the T-shirts should be censored or that the wearing of the T-shirts silences journalists. The point was the message of the T-shirts. The point is not to criticize people for being critical of journalists. The point is that there are people who, in point of fact, do want to censor journalists.

"Wanting" & "Doing" are 2 vastly different things.  I want to start for the LA Dodgers.  I have some Dodgers t-shirts even.  There have been a myriad of shirts & slogans that have implied far worse things, not just for Bush but for supporters of Bush.  I know you don't advocate violence, but the shirts do imply a "want".  And as I said, when you consider how biased the media & journalists can be against Bush, Conservatives, and "the right", I'm not so unsympathetic of the mindset of those wearing the shirt.  Not that I'd support the notion, but at least I can grasp the frustration they must have.  The "point" is that it's still someone's free speech to wear said shirt.

I've seen in this very forum the suggestion that certain journalists should be tried for treason, not because the journalists were actually engaged in treason, but because the journalists were doing their jobs and some people were offended.

Strange, in most of those cases of consideration, the acts of those journalists were borderline treasonous, by "doing their job", just not as objectively as they perhaps should have.  Yet the press continues full force, so the notion that there's this pressing censoship of the press, is falling on deaf ears

If fascism happens in this country, it won't be forced on us by the government. If it happens, it will happen because the people will have demanded the government make it happen. We will have no one to blame but ourselves.

It won't, because we live in a democracy, and people like me, won't stand for such a governmental body of oppression.  There are those however who would advocate exponentially greater demand for Government intervention, in every walk of one's life.  But that's just considered "activist Government".  I just pray we have enough votes to stem that tide

[Universe Prince]

"Wanting" & "Doing" are 2 vastly different things.  I want to start for the LA Dodgers.

That is not the same thing as as expressing a desire to censor (or kill) journalists, and you know it.

The "point" is that it's still someone's free speech to wear said shirt.

No one here ever said wearing the T-shirts was not free speech. The point, as I said, is that there are people who do want to censor journalists. Meaning, in the context of this discussion, that they want a little piece of fascism even if they would deny wanting the whole thing. But that little piece added to all the other little pieces that other people want would add up to the whole of fascism.

Strange, in most of those cases of consideration, the acts of those journalists were borderline treasonous, by "doing their job", just not as objectively as they perhaps should have.  Yet the press continues full force, so the notion that there's this pressing censoship of the press, is falling on deaf ears

You're not getting it. I did not say there was a censorship of the press. I said there are people who want it. And there are a lot of people who want it, apparently, not just a few. And while there is a difference between wanting and doing, desire also generally precedes action. And calling for journalists to be tried for treason is specifically an expression of a desire for action, not some golly gee wish to play for a professional sports team, a wish that you know you'll never pursue.

If fascism happens in this country, it won't be forced on us by the government. If it happens, it will happen because the people will have demanded the government make it happen. We will have no one to blame but ourselves.

It won't, because we live in a democracy, and people like me, won't stand for such a governmental body of oppression.

I think perhaps you will if you convince yourself it is necessary for security. That we live in a democratic republic is not proof against fascism. As I said, if it happens, it will happen because the people will have demanded the government make it happen. We will elect the leaders that will do it. We will use lobbyists and special interest groups to persuade politicians to act in such a manner. And we'll be convinced it will be necessary for security and the wellbeing of the people. After all, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. After all, the government has a right and a duty to protect the people. After all, the government has a responsibility to do something. After all, we are at war. After all, it's for your own good.

If it happens, it will happen because we will have talked ourselves into believing we need it. We won't call it fascism, of course. We'll call it socially responsible government. We'll call it a strong defense against enemies foreign and domestic. We'll call it protecting the children. And if we're really clever, we'll convince ourselves that those who end up punished by that fascism were just suffering the rightful consequences of their actions. We'll call it personal responsibility. We'll put lipstick, a wig, a dress and matching shoes on the pig, but it'll be fascism just the same.

[sirs]

"Wanting" & "Doing" are 2 vastly different things. 

That is not the same thing as as expressing a desire to censor (or kill) journalists, and you know it.....No one here ever said wearing the T-shirts was not free speech. The point, as I said, is that there are people who do want to censor journalists. Meaning, in the context of this discussion, that they want a little piece of fascism even if they would deny wanting the whole thing. But that little piece added to all the other little pieces that other people want would add up to the whole of fascism....I did not say there was a censorship of the press. I said there are people who want it. And there are a lot of people who want it, apparently, not just a few. And while there is a difference between wanting and doing, desire also generally precedes action. And calling for journalists to be tried for treason is specifically an expression of a desire for action, not some golly gee wish to play for a professional sports team, a wish that you know you'll never pursue....I think perhaps you will if you convince yourself it is necessary for security. That we live in a democratic republic is not proof against fascism. As I said, if it happens, it will happen because the people will have demanded the government make it happen.

And you help make my point by failing to understand that despite goals of being more secure, more safe from terrorist attacks upon our populace, our Constitution is what makes this country the envy of so many, our Bill of Rights, the envy of so many, our 1st amendment the cornerstone to that parchment so many of us have come to embrace.  YES, I want to rid this world of terrorists, YES, I want the Federal Government to exercise their PRIMARY function of protecting this country, within the parameters that the Constitution allows for, yet fascism will not take over, because too many folks like myself will demand that it doesn't, based on that parchment.  Again, your real beef are with those who'd want an "activist" government bent on controlling every aspect of our lives, and maybe throw a little $ towards national defense/security, if there is any left after taxes

[Universe Prince]

And you help make my point by failing to understand that despite goals of being more secure, more safe from terrorist attacks upon our populace, our Constitution is what makes this country the envy of so many, our Bill of Rights, the envy of so many, our 1st amendment the cornerstone to that parchment so many of us have come to embrace.

So are you on record then as being against National Security Letters, since they are most definitely not in the Constitution? Do you at least agree with the decision of the judge?

From The Boston Globe: In his 103-page ruling, Marrero said the Patriot Act provision on National Security Letters violates both "the First Amendment and the principle of separation of powers" because it gags recipients of the subpoenas and doesn't provide adequate court oversight. "In light of the seriousness of the potential intrusion into the individual's personal affairs and the significant possibility of a chilling effect on speech and association - particularly of expression that is critical of the government or its policies - a compelling need exists to ensure that the use of National Security Letters is subject to the safeguards of public accountability, checks and balances, and separation of powers that our Constitution prescribes," wrote Marrero, an appointee of President Clinton.

Or do you agree with (so-called) ChristiansUnited4LessGvt, who apparently thinks the decision is akin to helping Al-Qaeda?

From Reply #6: Big surprise: U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero nominated by William J. Clinton on May 27, 1999

I have to say, I think you're more likely to agree with ChristiansUnited4LessGvt than with the judge. And I seem to recall you being okay with the government holding people indefinitely without charging them or bringing them to trial. But I could be wrong. I hope I am.

YES, I want to rid this world of terrorists, YES, I want the Federal Government to exercise their PRIMARY function of protecting this country, within the parameters that the Constitution allows for, yet fascism will not take over, because too many folks like myself will demand that it doesn't, based on that parchment.

I want to ask if that is a joke, because it seems like one. You mean the same kind of folks who demanded the end of the New Deal? The same kind of folks who think President Lincoln was a not a good man because he did things like throwing dissenters in jail? The kind of people who do not want a wall and thousands of armed military personnel along our southern border? I just have a hard time believing that folks are going to stop the progress toward fascism in the name of the Constitution. If they even care, most will, I am sorry to predict, use the Constitution as their excuse. Kinda like you saying that federal government's primary function is to protect this country. The folks who will object, they will be called the unrealistic fringe. They will be told they have unworkable, ivory tower ideas that cannot be used in the real world. They will be told, eventually, to support national unity or shut up because objecting will be aiding the enemy or will be anti-social or some such. Comparisons will be made to World War II and someone like Michelle Malkin will praise Japanese internment camps again, and people will believe that we're all still free and upholding the Constitution and acting in the best interests of the nation.

Again, your real beef are with those who'd want an "activist" government bent on controlling every aspect of our lives, and maybe throw a little $ towards national defense/security, if there is any left after taxes

Only in part. I also have a beef with those for whom national security is a sort of catch-all excuse that makes things like National Security Letters perfectly constitutional. I have a beef with those who think reporting that the federal government is listening to electronic communications of terrorists is treasonous. (As if somehow the terrorists are too dumb to expect that in the first place.) I have a beef with people who think Cory Maye should be in jail. The progress toward fascism will not be made only by the political left or the political right. Both will make the small steps that will gradually lead there. And we will convince ourselves that those steps are necessary and good, just as we have with the steps taken to date. And those that one side or the other doesn't like will become like Social Security and the war in Iraq, untouchable for reasons of political expediency. Sure, the politicians will dabble around the edges, but the core will remain. And even if the conflict in Iraq should come to an end, the Democrats have a proven track record of finding new military conflicts. So the progress will continue on its gradual way.

I'm not saying this is absolutely inevitable. But when I watch candidates for President practically giggle at a man like Ron Paul, I have to say, that does not allay my cynicism in the least. Many people, probably a vast majority, want things that fascism promises to provide, like national unity, strong national security, government taking responsibility for society. And eventually, bit by bit, we seem to be convincing ourselves that it is really not that bad, that we can have it and our freedom too, that we can eat our cake and keep it too.

[Michael Tee]

Just a quick note to reply to sirs' idiotic "But I thought we were THIS CLOSE to a fascist state."  I've said many times that you're closer than you've ever been.  I never put the blame on Bush 100%, but I said he moved the country much closer to fascism than any other President I can think of.

"This close" is NOT the same as "being there."  You have a ways to go, but the President reserving unto himself the right to define "torture" combined with the widespread torture and abuse of prisoners, the expansion of the Patriot Act and the wiretaps of citizens, the incommunicado detention without trial and probable torture of a U.S. citizen (Jose Padilla) here in the U.S.A., the targeted assassination of U.S. citizens abroad (the guy in Yemen killed by a drone aircraft,) rendiition (begun under Clinton) and secret torture chambers around the world and the Presidential usurpation of the Congressional right to declare war (which I admit Bush didn't invent) are all in place, most of it since Sept. 11, 2001 on Bush's watch.

My bet is that in another six years, you'll be that much further along on the road, and then another six and another.  Bush has had almost two full terms to reverse the trend to fascism and instead he has accelerated it.

Just to straighten sirs out a tiny bit, Bush is evil mainly because he lied the country into a war and oversaw the tortures inflicted on helpless prisoners, as well as initiated procedures of detention without charges or trial, something straight out of a fascist state and still continuing as we speak.  The process towards fascism in Amerika did not begin with Bush, but he has certainly moved it further ahead than any other President.

[Universe Prince]

The process towards fascism in Amerika did not begin with Bush, but he has certainly moved it further ahead than any other President.

I don't agree. I don't believe he has done more; I think we're just more aware of it. Both legislative and executive branches seem to have been more blatant about it, since September 11, 2001. Because of that, I think we've had more media coverage of it. For example, National Security Letters have been around for decades, but only recently, seems to me, are we really getting much coverage in the media of how they are used and who uses them. And how they are abused. But then, very few people seem to care about that.

[sirs]

..Just to straighten sirs out a tiny bit, Bush is evil mainly because he lied the country into a war...

Well, since that again has been demonstrated to be the lie it's always been, so much for the rest of the crud

[sirs]

So are you on record then as being against National Security Letters, since they are most definitely not in the Constitution? Do you at least agree with the decision of the judge?...Or do you agree with (so-called) ChristiansUnited4LessGvt, who apparently thinks the decision is akin to helping Al-Qaeda?  I have to say, I think you're more likely to agree with ChristiansUnited4LessGvt than with the judge. And I seem to recall you being okay with the government holding people indefinitely without charging them or bringing them to trial. But I could be wrong. I hope I am.

A) I still don't understand what is being meant as "National Security Letters", and B) yes, I support taking enemy combatants off the battle field and holding them indefinately, just as has been done in every other war

YES, I want to rid this world of terrorists, YES, I want the Federal Government to exercise their PRIMARY function of protecting this country, within the parameters that the Constitution allows for, yet fascism will not take over, because too many folks like myself will demand that it doesn't, based on that parchment.

I want to ask if that is a joke, because it seems like one. You mean the same kind of folks who demanded the end of the New Deal? The same kind of folks who think President Lincoln was a not a good man because he did things like throwing dissenters in jail? The kind of people who do not want a wall and thousands of armed military personnel along our southern border? I just have a hard time believing that folks are going to stop the progress toward fascism in the name of the Constitution.

Well, I can't help you there, and no it's no joke.  My support for the Constitution & Bill of Rights, AS WAS INTENDED by our Founders is unshakable.  Security at the cost of Freedom is......Iraq under Saddam.  So, no it's not going to happen here, at least not from the right side of the ideological spectrum.  I can't vouuch for the left however, considering all the end arounds, when not trampling right over the Constitution is being done in the name of an "activist government" however

If they even care, most will, I am sorry to predict, use the Constitution as their excuse. Kinda like you saying that federal government's primary function is to protect this country.

It's not??  Then what is their primary function, pray tell??

I'm not saying this is absolutely inevitable. But when I watch candidates for President practically giggle at a man like Ron Paul, I have to say, that does not allay my cynicism in the least. Many people, probably a vast majority, want things that fascism promises to provide, like national unity, strong national security, government taking responsibility for society. And eventually, bit by bit, we seem to be convincing ourselves that it is really not that bad, that we can have it and our freedom too, that we can eat our cake and keep it too.

Well, those would be the folks we'd BOTH be opposing then, Prince

[Universe Prince]

A) I still don't understand what is being meant as "National Security Letters",

Okay. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letters

and B) yes, I support taking enemy combatants off the battle field and holding them indefinately, just as has been done in every other war

In other wars they were granted prisoner of war status. So what is being done now, whether or not the current "enemy combatants" should be considered "prisoners of war", is not just as has been done in every other war. So your position does not stand up to even a first glance scrutiny.

And by my understanding, if they are not prisoners of war, then they should be charged accordingly and given as fair a trial as is humanly possible. If they are terrorists and we have the evidence to prove it then we have zero reason not to follow that course. If we do not have enough evidence to prove they are terrorists then we have no grounds on which to keep them incarcerated.

My support for the Constitution & Bill of Rights, AS WAS INTENDED by our Founders is unshakable.

Is it? As I recall, you're the fellow who claims the Bill of Rights applies only to citizens of the U.S. I have yet to see any evidence that was the intent of the people who wrote it. Seems to me the Bill of Rights applies to the government, meaning its actions are restricted regarding more than merely U.S. citizens. The language of the Bill of Rights makes this, imo, quite clear, indicating a definite intent on the part of the people who wrote it.

So, no it's not going to happen here, at least not from the right side of the ideological spectrum.  I can't vouuch for the left however, considering all the end arounds, when not trampling right over the Constitution is being done in the name of an "activist government" however

Not like those folks from the right who want to try journalists for treason and to ignore the Fourth Amendment when it suits them? Yeah, nothing to worry about there.

Kinda like you saying that federal government's primary function is to protect this country.

It's not??  Then what is their primary function, pray tell??

To protect the rights of the people. If it was to protect the country, a military government would have been established, not a democratic republic with specific limits on the government (a.k.a. the Bill of Rights).

[sirs]

yes, I support taking enemy combatants off the battle field and holding them indefinately, just as has been done in every other war

In other wars they were granted prisoner of war status. So what is being done now, whether or not the current "enemy combatants" should be considered "prisoners of war", is not just as has been done in every other war. So your position does not stand up to even a first glance scrutiny.

Of course it does, since these POW's fail to meet the Geneva convention definition of POW's, since they fail to both be uniformed nor adhere to any form of the Geneva Convention themselves.  Yet since they still are prisoners taken in a time of war, they are indeed enemy combatants, nit just some thugs of a local gang, taking pot shots at the police

My support for the Constitution & Bill of Rights, AS WAS INTENDED by our Founders is unshakable.

Is it? As I recall, you're the fellow who claims the Bill of Rights applies only to citizens of the U.S.

Ummm, because it DOES.  You care to cite me the provisions within the Constitution that demonstrate how it is to apply to every person on this globe?  Or better yet, the provision that demonstrates how the U.S.'s Constitution trumps any other country's piece of Government control.  Acknowledging that our American Constitution is specific to Americans does not equate to me not supporting it.    oy

Seems to me the Bill of Rights applies to the government, meaning its actions are restricted regarding more than merely U.S. citizens.  The language of the Bill of Rights makes this, imo, quite clear, indicating a definite intent on the part of the people who wrote it.

By all means, show me where

So, no it's not going to happen here, at least not from the right side of the ideological spectrum.  I can't vouuch for the left however, considering all the end arounds, when not trampling right over the Constitution is being done in the name of an "activist government" however

Not like those folks from the right who want to try journalists for treason and to ignore the Fourth Amendment when it suits them? Yeah, nothing to worry about there.

Good, glad we're on the same boat then, since you're obviously referencing a fringe faction

Kinda like you saying that federal government's primary function is to protect this country.

It's not??  Then what is their primary function, pray tell??

To protect the rights of the people. If it was to protect the country, a military government would have been established, not a democratic republic with specific limits on the government (a.k.a. the Bill of Rights).

The "Rights of the People" amount to nothing if it can't be protected, Prince.  It doesn't require a military Government to do that, it requires what we already have, a Constitution that spells out precisly the functions AND limitations of the Government are.  In order for the Fed to "protect the rights of the people" requires a very good defense.  What the hell do you think we went to war with Germany & Japan for??  Why did we even have a Revolutionary or Civil war??  We frequently go to war (via the military) to "protect the rights of the people".  If we hadn't, we may all be speaking Japanese right now, or still under the rule of Great Britain, or even still have slavery

[Universe Prince]

In other wars they were granted prisoner of war status. So what is being done now, whether or not the current "enemy combatants" should be considered "prisoners of war", is not just as has been done in every other war. So your position does not stand up to even a first glance scrutiny.

Of course it does, since these POW's fail to meet the Geneva convention definition of POW's, since they fail to both be uniformed nor adhere to any form of the Geneva Convention themselves.  Yet since they still are prisoners taken in a time of war, they are indeed enemy combatants, nit just some thugs of a local gang, taking pot shots at the police

I did not say they were not enemy combatants. Let's try this again. In other wars they were granted prisoner of war status. So what is being done now, whether or not the current "enemy combatants" should be considered "prisoners of war", is not just as has been done in every other war. So your position, in point of fact, does not stand up to even a first glance scrutiny.

You care to cite me the provisions within the Constitution that demonstrate how it is to apply to every person on this globe?  Or better yet, the provision that demonstrates how the U.S.'s Constitution trumps any other country's piece of Government control.

Why would I do that? Why would I bother supporting claims I never made? I don't see how that would be fruitful in the least.

Acknowledging that our American Constitution is specific to Americans does not equate to me not supporting it.

Perhaps, but that does make me question your understanding of it.

Seems to me the Bill of Rights applies to the government, meaning its actions are restricted regarding more than merely U.S. citizens.  The language of the Bill of Rights makes this, imo, quite clear, indicating a definite intent on the part of the people who wrote it.

By all means, show me where

Well, there is not a single clause in the Bill of Rights that says "this is for U.S. citizens only" or some variation thereof. That's for starters.

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights says, "The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution." Notice in there the word "restrictive". Does the Bill of Rights restrict the people or the government?

The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Notice there that the language of the amendment is clearly placing a restriction on Congress.

The Second Amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Notice that last part, "shall not be infringed." By whom shall it not be infringed? The federal government, obviously.

Do I need to keep going?

Not like those folks from the right who want to try journalists for treason and to ignore the Fourth Amendment when it suits them? Yeah, nothing to worry about there.

Good, glad we're on the same boat then, since you're obviously referencing a fringe faction

I wish I were.

The "Rights of the People" amount to nothing if it can't be protected, Prince.  It doesn't require a military Government to do that, it requires what we already have, a Constitution that spells out precisly the functions AND limitations of the Government are.

Okay, I'm going to repeat myself again, because clearly you didn't quite get it the first time. The primary (please note that there is no use of the word "only") function of the federal government is to protect the rights of the people. If it was to protect the country, a military government would have been established, not a democratic republic with specific limits on the government (a.k.a. the Bill of Rights).

In order for the Fed to "protect the rights of the people" requires a very good defense.  What the hell do you think we went to war with Germany & Japan for??  Why did we even have a Revolutionary or Civil war??  We frequently go to war (via the military) to "protect the rights of the people".  If we hadn't, we may all be speaking Japanese right now, or still under the rule of Great Britain, or even still have slavery

No one said there was no legitimate reason for having a military defense. And no, we did not require a war to end slavery. And I think we went to war with Germany and Japan in World War II because our President at the time really wanted America to go to war, not because he was vehemently anti-fascist (which I don't think he was, but that is another issue for another time). Anyway, I did not say there was no reason to have a national defense. What I said was that the primary function of government is to protect the rights of the people. Having a national defense does indeed help accomplish that, but having a national defense is not, nor should it be, the primary function.

But you have helped to illustrate a problem with the relationship between the people the government that is another factor in the progress toward fascism. The U.S. almost as a whole has stopped considering the protection of rights as the primary function of government. This is not a recent development either. The U.S. has come to believe the government exists to protect us all from harm. With that as a guiding principle, we will guide ourselves gradually into fascism. We won't call it fascism, of course, but it will be fascism anyway.

[sirs]

I did not say they were not enemy combatants. Let's try this again. In other wars they were granted prisoner of war status.[/color

No, they were not.  POW status, as outlined in the Geneva convention as I recall, regards such a prisoner as one uniformed, representative of a particular government...THUS the term enemy combants and NOT POW's in this case.  They are however prisoners taken during a war, and as such can and SHOULD be held indefinately, just as prisoners in prior wars were.

So what is being done now, whether or not the current "enemy combatants" should be considered "prisoners of war", is not just as has been done in every other war. So your position, in point of fact, does not stand up to even a first glance scrutiny.

Asked and answered already, Prince

You care to cite me the provisions within the Constitution that demonstrate how it is to apply to every person on this globe?  Or better yet, the provision that demonstrates how the U.S.'s Constitution trumps any other country's piece of Government control.

Why would I do that? Why would I bother supporting claims I never made?

Because you're the one implying how our Constitution apparently reaches out globally.  That's why.  Something about how your questioning me in citing that the American Constitution is speciific to Americans.  Ball in your court

Acknowledging that our American Constitution is specific to Americans does not equate to me not supporting it.

Perhaps, but that does make me question your understanding of it.

Which again prompts the query, where in the Constitution does it apply to all other citizens of any other country. 

Seems to me the Bill of Rights applies to the government, meaning its actions are restricted regarding more than merely U.S. citizens.  The language of the Bill of Rights makes this, imo, quite clear, indicating a definite intent on the part of the people who wrote it.

By all means, show me where

Well, there is not a single clause in the Bill of Rights that says "this is for U.S. citizens only" or some variation thereof. That's for starters. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights says, "The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution." Notice in there the word "restrictive". Does the Bill of Rights restrict the people or the government? The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Notice there that the language of the amendment is clearly placing a restriction on Congress. The Second Amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Notice that last part, "shall not be infringed." By whom shall it not be infringed? The federal government, obviously. Do I need to keep going?

Yes, since you're trying to answer the question with a negative.  You appear to be referencing that because our U.S. constitution doesn't specifically state only U.S. citizens, then that means it must apply to everyone.  Can't be assumed in any way the logic of the U.S. Constitution being specific to U.S. citizens.  Naaaa, it's a "living document", free to be reinterpreted on the fly, as we see fit.     

The "Rights of the People" amount to nothing if it can't be protected, Prince.  It doesn't require a military Government to do that, it requires what we already have, a Constitution that spells out precisly the functions AND limitations of the Government are.

Okay, I'm going to repeat myself again, because clearly you didn't quite get it the first time. The primary (please note that there no use of the word "only") function of the federal government is to protect the rights of the people. If it was to protect the country, a military government would have been established, not a democratic republic with specific limits on the government (a.k.a. the Bill of Rights).

And you can NOT protect the "Rights of the People" withOUT protecting this country.  According to you, other wars were apparently unecessary, since the Fed needed to focus their attention on "protecting the rights of the people" rather than protecting the country.  Chicken <--> egg kinda thing