If the demoRATs had their way we wouldn't be able to question terrorists for fear of injuring their delicate sensibilities. The Senate was smart enough to take the gloves off and expose the defeatocrats for the America-haters they really are!

im curious....what is the dems plan on fighting terrorism???

i really am asking out of a genuine curiosity, because I have never heard it before!

can any dem here provide that via a link?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I AM questioning their patriotism.

Of the interrogation bill, Sen. Specter said, "What this entire controversy boils down to is whether Congress is going to legislate to deny a constitutional right which is explicit in the document of the Constitution itself and which has been applied to aliens by the Supreme Court of the United States," Specter said. If the bill passes without habeas corpus protections, it will be struck down by the high court, and "we'll be on this floor again rewriting the law," Specter predicted.

So once again it appears that congress has passed the political football over to the judiciary who, amidst a great amount of finger-pointing and accusations of "activism", will throw it back to congress. Will it ever end?

Rico, how long do you think it will take to get to the Supreme Court? And who would possibly have standing? A terrorist? Bush will probably have another sensible Justice on the court by then. So when you wish upon a star for giving more rights to terrorist, consider wishing for something a little more realistic.

Specter barks a lot but when it comes to doing his duty, he does the right thing. So did a dozen or so of your own treasonous party. They aren't all stupid enough to support terrorists during an election cycle. It's all about power with the left, after all.

So what say you to that?

Um. You want a link to the Dems' plan? Just click Matt's link. It's the paragraph after the one he quoted.

"Democrats will be tough and smart, and will actually fight the terrorists, not leave them to plan future attacks."

Sounds simple, sure. But Dems would actually fight, oh, I don't know, AL QAEDA, and Osama bin Laden (where is he these days, anyway?). They would not waste time fighting tinpot dictatorships who clearly have no ability to acquire any sorts of weapons whatsoever.

W obviously now realizes that attacking Iraq after 9/11 is tantamount to attacking Mexico after Pearl Harbor. For him to even bring up FDR is beyond laughable.

Bob, I think YOU are a terrorist. In fact, I have a witness here that corroborates my conclusion. Defend yourself. But remember, now that you are so labeled, you have no habeas corpus rights. I don't even have to tell you who the witness is, or how I came to obtain his confession. So good luck.

Of course, such a thing couldn't happen to you, right? Then again, why not? I'm guessing you're in my party, and you're calling my party treasonous. So why not you?

The point is, I'm not "wishing upon a star to give more rights to terrorists". Rather, I would like to ensure those who aren't are provided with theirs. Everyone seems to think it's really easy to tell one from the other. It's not. Not always. I don't know if you've ever gotten caught up in a legal snafu, or known anyone who has, but it isn't pleasant.

But you are right in the sense that what happened was perfectly predictable considering that we are approaching an election cycle. The Dems, knowing full well that the bill that passed congress would never pass judicial muster, didn't have to do much of anything. Those in close races voted for it, those seeking to maintain their bonafides voted against it. Likewise the Reps. It was a classic example of kicking the can down the road. Good work, congress.

Rico, how long do you think it will take to get to the Supreme Court?

Probably 2 years before the (conservative) Supreme court rules this (and the reinterpretation of the Geneva conventions as well as the denial of habeas corpus to "enemy combatants") as unconstitutional. The unnecessary delay, which history will not look kindly on us for, is something you as an American should be ashamed of.

I'm at least pleased that the warrantless wiretapping bill appears to be at an impasse.

As for who will challenge these bills - that's the problem. When you authorize the government to legally engage in activity without the hint of oversight (even the oversight of a secret court such as the FISA court), we have to rely on whistle blowers to inform us. That is NOT the American Way.

Instead of engaging in fearmongering and attacks, why don't you describe exactly why warrants are detrimental to our security; why habeas corpus threatens our security; or why, in our govermental system of checks and balances, we should simply trust unnamed people to honor our rights as citizens without a hint of oversight?

Ricorun,

In that quote of Specter's that you cited, he's talking specifically about the provision that prevents detainees from seeking a habeas writ, right?

The quote refers to aliens, but my own distaste for the interrogation bill comes mostly from Bush's apparent desire to apply the same restrictions to American citizens. I know Specter has made mention of this angle as well, but I think the two problems are getting too intertwined in the soundbites I'm hearing.

In other words, I think there are two different issues here; there's the issue of denying due process to non-citizens, which is being muddied by discussions of combatant status and the designation thereof. And then there is the issue of denying due process to citizens, and this is the part that's not getting nearly enough attention. I know that many people on both sides of the debate would rather not separate the two, but I'm having difficulty with the monolithic treatment because, while I'm not totally sure what I believe about the first issue (due process for non-citizens), I am very sure that I oppose the administration's attempts to deny due process to citizens.

Does this make sense? I guess I'm asking, Rico, in your reading of Specter, do you find him to be more troubled by the effects of this bill's habeas provision on citizens, or is he lumping citizens and non-citizens together?

Dah, Rico, I submitted before reading your latest post. I see that my desired distinctions are clear to you as well, but I am still curious to know how you read Specter on this stuff.

Maybe the Dems idea of interrogation, is tickling
the Terrorists' feet with a feather. This overt
protection of those wanting to kill Americans is
too, too over the top. This is a war that will be
going on for a long time, and we need ALL the resources to garner info on what is going on in these Terrorists plans. I don't care what they have to do to gather info from the prisoners-did they care, when our people had heads cut off, dragged bodies through the streets, video taped all of their attrocities? We are too worried about being politically correct-for what, future wars? B.S. They do not abide by any Geneva Convention, and I know the argument-"we are not like them----no we are not, but we better be alot stronger on them, than we have been. They are doing alot of listening to the 'panty waistes of the Democrat party, and feel we will buckle under the pressure to go light on prisoners. This is War, and shouldn't be compromised by the "cut and run crowd of the Democrat Party"

BTW: It IS about time, that President Bush did
"take off the gloves, as he has been too much the gentleman, and the Dems have lied, smeared and beaten him up on a daily basis, like a piniata"
Good for you Mr. President-keep on punchin'

The democrats are HOLLYWOOD DWELLERS!!

Some helpful advice to you democrats:

THIS IS *NOT* HOLLYWOOD, THIS IS THE TRUTH, THIS IS REALITY!

You only seek to make us vulnerable!! You overlook the blood, death, sadness, pain, hunger, grief, You overlook REALITY! in a land ruled by ruthless bloodthirsty tyrannts!

Democrats think we're crazy, HaHa, to somebody who does'nt understand, we're crazy, but in REALITY, It is meant for the grown-ups, bar-none!!

President Bush, is a responsible person who is willing to stick by his conscience led by God, and let me tell you, ANY MAN WHO IS WILLING TO STAND UP FOR WHAT THEY BELIEVE RIGHT BY GOD'S DIRECTION, IS A TRUE MAN! No bones about it!

Thank you! President Bush, for your dedication and loyalty as the finest President EVER, in doing what is right for the American people!, and for our troops and their bravery in protecting this Great land, Our home!!

Jeremiah

You're in good form tonight, Jeremiah.

Can all of you libs please repeat after me

THESE ARE NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS!!!!

PERIOD

Why on earth are you for granting rights afforded American citizens to terrorists on the battle field? It's unbelievable.

But please, keep screaming about it because Mr. Mainstream America is going to finally wake up and see what complete kooks you libs are.

Bob, I think YOU are a terrorist.

Well, thinking is hard. It's nice that you tried for the first time, but it takes a couple of tries to get it right. Kudos for trying though! You'll be a Republican in no time!

I'm guessing you're in my party, and you're calling my party treasonous.

You're guessing wrong and your party is treasonous.

But you are right in the sense that what happened was perfectly predictable considering that we are approaching an election cycle. The Dems, knowing full well that the bill that passed congress would never pass judicial muster, didn't have to do much of anything.

I'm trying to be helpful here, RicoCutAndRun. What does your statement tell you about your party? That they care about your rights and the rights of your fellow terrorists? What a brave stand they didn't take, eh?

Good work, congress.

Well, you're making progress. Let's cheer that at least the smarter heads prevailed. I don't know why the right to interrogate terrorists would ever be a question. As long as we don't tickle them.

I'm at least pleased that the warrantless wiretapping bill appears to be at an impasse.

Why is that? Are you talking to bin Laden?

why don't you describe exactly why warrants are detrimental to our security

They aren't. But if you're talking to terrorists warrants are not necessary. I hope Mark and Matt pass your IP to the NSA, windowpane.

Are these the best arguments the left can offer? No wonder they lose election after election after election after....

The democrats are HOLLYWOOD DWELLERS!!

Well, that's enough for me. Thanks Jeremiah, for keeping it simple and to the point. Anyone here want Charlie Sheen running the government?

Bob Arctor,

I think you've missed Rico's point here. What he's saying is that if you, Bob, are accused of being a terrorist, then you are at risk of losing your constitutional rights to due process if the Bush administration has its way. Do you disagree with this point?

Warrior, I would point you in this same direction; while it is true that we've mostly been talking about non-citizens, the Bush administration wants the authority to restrict due process for CITIZENS as well. This is not an idle threat; Bush has put it in writing.

In case you're curious, Bob or Warrior, there was a rather in-depth discussion of exactly this topic in the "Trying of Terrorists" thread a couple of weeks ago, where the ever-knowledgable Bane of Liberals' Existence took exception to some of my arguments.

Bane makes some very good points, and I'm still not totally decided on a lot of this stuff. But I'm also not alone in my reservations. There are many conservatives like myself who are very wary of giving this much power to the executive branch.

Nate,

Spot on.

Warrior,

You scream quite loud enough yourself, thank you. I'd like to see your response to Nate. Remember, the question is how you feel about this being applied to CITIZENS. That's you and me, if you're still with me.

-funnyguy

"Five years after 9/11, the worst attack on the American homeland in our history, . . ."

So much for Pearl Harbour. And you wonder why I hate hyperbole.

All these arguments on the right or wrong of habeas corpus overlooks an important point, which I can sum up in two words.
Suicide bombers.
Many, if not most, of the people planning to attack the U.S. are not concerned about incarceration or prison. If they are stressed about anything, then it is about how they are going to have time for all those virgins.

Meanwhile, as some of you wonder about the Democrat's plan to counter terrorism, I wonder about the Republican plan.
In case you missed it, America has just suffered a terrorist attack. 53-year-old Duane Morrison, a petty criminal who had been living inside his Jeep, walked inside a Bailey, Colorado school Wednesday with two handguns and, after taking six female hostages and molesting them, killed one of them, 16-year-old Emily Keyes, and then himself as policemen stormed the school.
Too bad his name wasn't Ahmed. Maybe then we'd have taken the case seriously.
After all, America has a huge bureaucracy designed to deter men named Ahmed from killing Americans with suicide attacks. The President himself has said that America is safer because of what he and the Republican leadership have done since 9/11.Much of the current campaigning by Republican congressmen is about how they have gone to great lengths to make sure men named Abdul or Ahmed cannot commit such acts.
Presumably, it should kick in whenever someone like this attempts an attack - or else what good is it?

Or do all you people think that terrorists only work in packs, discussing their plans over the phone?
Yes, it's too bad the man's name was Duane. The wiretaps didn't stand a chance.

"the question is how you feel about this being applied to CITIZENS " The question is irrelevant, it applies to detainees and other miscreants. These people are not citizens, how many times do we have to say it?

Doncha just love it when the dems are forced to publically defend the rights of TERRORISTS...just when the electorate is begining to pay attention??

"Five years after 9/11, the worst attack on the American homeland in our history, . . ."

"So much for Pearl Harbour. And you wonder why I hate hyperbole."

It's amazing how public schools have failed us. Far left wing fanatical kooks like The Small Town hick don't even know that Pear Harbour was not considered "American homeland" at the time since Hawaii did not become a state until 1959. I wonder if the kook also knows that more people died on 9-11 than at Pearl Harbour. So, even if you're to make the arguement that Hawaii was part of the "Homeland" hundreds more perished on 9-11 than at Pearl Harbour.

PPlus CJ, Pearl Harbor was a military target, not a civilian one. Huge distinction!

I've seen people state, over and over again, on this thread that this bill does not apply to United States citizens. I hate to confuse anybody with facts, but it DOES. And that is what is so concerning about it. The Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves.

The democrats are HOLLYWOOD DWELLERS!!

Some helpful advice to you democrats:

THIS IS *NOT* HOLLYWOOD, THIS IS THE TRUTH, THIS IS REALITY!

You only seek to make us vulnerable!! You overlook the blood, death, sadness, pain, hunger, grief, You overlook REALITY! in a land ruled by ruthless bloodthirsty tyrannts!

Democrats think we're crazy, HaHa, to somebody who does'nt understand, we're crazy, but in REALITY, It is meant for the grown-ups, bar-none!!

President Bush, is a responsible person who is willing to stick by his conscience led by God, and let me tell you, ANY MAN WHO IS WILLING TO STAND UP FOR WHAT THEY BELIEVE RIGHT BY GOD'S DIRECTION, IS A TRUE MAN! No bones about it!

Thank you! President Bush, for your dedication and loyalty as the finest President EVER, in doing what is right for the American people!, and for our troops and their bravery in protecting this Great land, Our home!!

my god jeremiah did you just get back from JESUS CAMP? they done brainwashed you good little soldier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_EKHK1C2IE

"The RUBBER gloves are off"

Now there's a surprise, anti religious bigotry from a far left wing lunatic.

finn grove,

perhaps you missed mine and Ricos' posts above; the question is quite relevant because Bush has made it clear that he wants to ability to restrict due process for BOTH citizens and non-citizens in the same way.

Nate, funnyguy, liberal nut cases.....

Are you guys serious? Are you really serious? This law applies to NON CITIZENS. PERIOD.

Do you guys plan on getting involved in terrorism and relinquishing your American citizenship that you think you might be caught in this?

The only people that should be worried are Canuckgy and Axis at this point.

Please show us where there is an assault on rights of US Citizens. Please show us!!

Bayside bomber....show us WHERE it applies to US citizens?

And if it did, why did so many of your liberal friends in Congress also vote for it.

I'm sorry, but I can't just take your word for it, that of the other kooks on the left. Show us where it effects AMERICAN CITIZENS?

let's hear it for TYRANNY folks! beacuse that's the new black and it suits the wingers juuuust fine.

T Y R A N N Y! it's ok we're told. we don't have to pee our pants anymore everytime there is an orange alert because dear leader is protecting us from all those "terrists"
(which reminds me, we're coming up on an election, we must be due a couple "code oranges" in the next few weeks)

Warriornation,

Bush has made it clear that he wants to be able to use the powers given to him by the interrogation bill against American citizens. Here's an excerpt from a presidential brief filed on June 19, 2002 in the prosecution of Yaser Hamdi:

"The military has the authority to capture and detain individuals whom it has determined are enemy combatants, including enemy combatants claiming American citizenship. Such combatants, moreover, have no right of access to counsel to challenge their detention."

How nuch more clear can we get?

Making things more scary, Bush argued that the determination of "enemy comatant" status should be completely at HIS discretion, and not the courts. This means that I as an accused terrorist would have no chance to challenge in charges in court, I would never get to see the evidence against me, and I would not even be allowed to hire an attorney.

Again, these are not idle threats; there have already been two well-covered cases in which Bush has attempted to deprive American citizens of their rights to due process, those being Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi.

Nate,
I know I mentioned this before, be careful when quoting out of context; Bush’s reference to “enemy combatants” is reference to the “unlawful” variety from the legal term (See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38) and was speaking of those of the unlawful kind captured on the battlefield, which may include those claiming to be American citizens.

The President has the authority to detain enemy combatants, including those who are U.S. citizens, during wartime. (see also Colepaugh v. Looney, 235 F. 2d 429, 432 (10th Cir. 1956); In re Territo, 156 F. 2d 142, 145 (9th Cir. 1946). Also note Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 296 F.3d 278, 281, 283 (4th Cir. 2002). The President’s authority is bolstered by Congress’s Joint Resolution of September 18, 2001, which authorized “the President . . . to use all necessary and appropriate force” against al Qaeda and against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines” committed or aided in the September 11 attacks.” Pub. L. No. 107-40, § 2(a), 115 Stat. 224 (2001)

The designation of enemy combatant has always been the jurisdiction of the President with counsel from the military, this is not a distinction for civil or criminal courts. If it were, any terrorist captured on the battlefield could claim that he did not receive his Miranda rights, and demand release, and abscent proof that the terrorist was Marandized while trying to lop off a soldier's head, the courts would order his release.

The question I think you mean to ask, is if not captured on the battlefield, how then would the designation of unlawful enemy combatant be applied to an American citizen>? I think we can all agree that a John Lynd captured in Afghanistan with a weapon, actively fighting American soldiers is an unlawful enemy combatant and has no right to ask a criminal court to demand his presence. But what acts must an American commit at home, or in furtherance of the enemies cause off the battle field that would have him be classified as an unlawful enemy combatant and lose his Constitutional privileges?

Despite Rico’s breathless assertions; it would take more than a fellow poster calling you a terrorist. That, btw could be considered libelous in and of itself and would require that I have my lawyer call Rico’s lawyer and do lunch!

I believe that the standard is already outlined in the Code of Military Justice, but I'm no expert in that. If someone else knows the place where the military defines such, please advise. Any case that doesn’t meet the standard would be litigated. An American citizen detained within the country would have the right to civilian courts even if he's branded a terrorist by V.P. Rick-o-Run, to lose that he would have to be detained on the battlefield, which speaks to his guilt, I think.

Nate if it's so clear show us where in the bill it states this?

If it's so clear, why did 33% of the Democrats go along with it?

You know, at some point you have to get off mommy's teat and that of Daily Kos and the DummyUnderground and not believe everything you see there.

Let's use common sense here...

I now understand why you anti-American libs are so nervous. Yes, you can actually be brought to justice if you decide to attack. Which is wonderful!!

:)

It's funny, what Bush is asking to do is exactly what DEMOCRAT FDR did with Japanese-Americans, exactly what the greatest President in the USA (Abe Lincoln did), etc, etc.

It boggles the mind to hear these liberals speak. Hey libs, don't get involved in terrorism and you don't have to worry about it.

That may be hard for you, but give it a try.

Nate said:

This means that I as an accused terrorist would have no chance to challenge in charges in court, I would never get to see the evidence against me, and I would not even be allowed to hire an attorney.

So what's the problem? Don't be a terrorist and you'll be fine. Perhaps you should consider supporting America and getting over your BDS. That might help. Resist your BDS tendencies. Suppress the urge to participate in unlawful behavior.

Help to win the war on terror rather than fighting against it (and on the side of the Islamofascists who want to kill us both). Cooperating with the terrorists won't earn you any favors.

I know it's hard for you libs but I hope that helps.

Nate...pretty simple. Don't be caught on the battlefield as a terrorist. Don't be making phone calls to Abu babba about buying explosives.

No wonder why you guys are so nervous, you speak like the terrorists each day.

When is the last time you read this in the paper

"(insert terrorist name here) revealed valuable information to authorities after soft (weak) interrogations"

No, it's always after TOUGH, STRONG, STRENUOUS, LONG, UNCOMFORTABLE.

What is with you pansies...it is incredible to see how soft our country has become. WWII vets are disgusted with the softness of our nation now, absolutely disgusted.

Fight the war TO WIN, not this pansy one arm tied behind our back powder puff crap.

Speaking of Democratic plans against Osama and Al Qaeda. I'll let Richard Clarke describe the plan that was passed on to George Bush that he ignored.....

"Wednesday, March 24, 2004

WASHINGTON — The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter's decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.

RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, mid-January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies — and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.

Over the course of the summer — last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.

And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

QUESTION: When was that presented to the president?

CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process.

QUESTION: But when was the final September 4 document? (interrupted) Was that presented to the president?

CLARKE: The document went to the president on September 10, I think.

QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the — general animus against the foreign policy?

CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

ANGLE: OK.

QUESTION: Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested?

CLARKE: Well, what I'm saying is, there are two things presented. One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues — like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy — that they had been unable to come to um, any new conclusions, um, from '98 on.

QUESTION: Was all of that from '98 on or was some of it ...

CLARKE: All of those issues were on the table from '98 on.

ANGLE: When in '98 were those presented?

CLARKE: In October of '98.

QUESTION: In response to the Embassy bombing?

CLARKE: Right, which was in September.

QUESTION: Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to ...

CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.

QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?

CLARKE: There was no new plan.

QUESTION: No new strategy — I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ...

CLARKE: Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.

----------

Good thing Bush ignored this plan, we would have done nothing after 9/11, just like Clinton did after 8 years.....

Well maybe cut and run like Clinton did in Somalia........

Bane: "Despite Rico’s breathless assertions; it would take more than a fellow poster calling you a terrorist. That, btw could be considered libelous in and of itself and would require that I have my lawyer call Rico’s lawyer and do lunch!"

Thank you for the breath of sanity. Sometimes you have to sift through many levels of talking points to get to the real meat of the biscuit. With my "breathless" and hopelessly simple example, I was intending to speak in parables, not fact per se. The point I was trying to make is that there is much more here than meets the eye. That goes without saying (I would hope, but you never know around here) that as nothing more than a fellow blogger, of course I could not imprison Bob. The more important question, as you pointed out is, could I as "V.P. Ricorun" do it? Or Ricorun, Head of Security of This or That Agency do it? And on what grounds? Other things that aren't clear to me are: what constitutes a "battlefield", or a "combatant"? What constitutes "citizenship" and in what sense does it change things? For that matter, what constitutes "war"? And how do you know said "war" is over? Most of these issues were not even touched on. But if you think about them, they loom large. Take Iraq for example: in what sense are we in a war there? The mission there was supposed to be accomplished a long time ago. I thought this is supposed to be the nation-building phase. Likewise in Afghanistan. In other words, we are not battling states anymore. There will never be a surrender. Neither will "terrorists" ever be eliminated entirely. Thus, the whole notion of being "at war" has taken on a very different kind of meaning. And thus, we must be very careful about whose rights we infringe on, when we infinge on them, and why, because we are going to be confronted with those questions in perpetuity.

Many times and in many ways, many people have accused others here, or public figures in general, as being guilty of treason by virtue of the fact that their criticism of the powers that be bore some superficial resemblance to one or another individual or faction that could be properly construed as a true enemy of the state. In fact Bane, as you recall, we had a very interesting discussion a few months ago on that very issue. Now, if one is inclined to accuse another of treason on those grounds, how big a step is required to further accuse them of being an "enemy combatant"? For that matter, do any further steps need to be taken? Treason is a pretty serious charge in and of itself. Let us assume further that such an individual was implicated by another designated "enemy combatant" as actually having more than just a superficial tie to one or another individual or faction that could properly be construed as an enemy of the state. Suddenly the charge becomes extremely serious, wouldn't you say? Finally, let's assume that the person so charged of treason had no way to question the witness against him, had no way to know, let alone examine, any of the other evidence against him or her, or even know whether such evidence existed. Again I ask... have you ever been caught up in a legal snafu, or know anyone who has? It sucks even under the best of circumstances. But under the worst of circumstances it becomes patently unconstitutional. And THAT'S the bottom line -- congress knew it. They knew the bill they passed yesterday would never pass judicial muster. In the end it was just an exercise of political buck-passing. You, and others, might construe that as a partisan comment. But I don't mean it as such. The Dems are easily as much to blame as the Reps in congress. But then again, what do you expect? The administration handed them a political hand-grenade just before an election. What did anyone expect to happen? My answer is: exactly what did -- they passed it on to the Supreme Court. And they will ultimately get it back. Bob seems to think that the Supreme Court will, by that time, be more conservative. Given the current state of affairs, what do you think? Personally, I think the last best chance in some time was just blown. This issue may ultimately work out badly.

I found the link to Tired's post. This is it. And it is definitely worth a read. Very, very interesting.

Upon further reseach, I found this, which is even more interesting. It sounds to me like Mr. Clarke has some 'splanin' to do.

Bane,

I think Rico stated my arguments perfectly, and I would only add this:

You say that Bush’s use of "enemy combatant" refers to combatants captured on the battlefield, but here again we have the problem of floating defintions. In the whole 46 page brief, Bush never pins down the definition of the word "battlefield" in a way meant to be applied generally (not that I can see, anyway). In other words, he wants to be the one who decides what "battlefield" means. This is not surprising; the president has sought unilateral control over all other aspects of this confrontation as well, and it is exactly this pursuit of control that has me so nervous.

Furthermore, Jose Padilla was arrested in Chicago, nowhere near anything that could be called a battlefield.

Warriornation,

I understand that it helps you to imagine that I'm on the left ideologically. The problem is that I'm not.

- I voted for Bush, twice.
- I'm a rabid free-speech purist, as you might remember from the Flag Burning Amendment thread.
- I'm a gun-owner, and a card-carrying member of the NRA.

I pretty neatly fall into line with the traditional small-government, fiscally conservative sort of republican on most issues. Traditionally, suspicion of the government's attempts to consolidate power (or claim new powers) has been almost a virtue of republicans, especially us small-government types.

If you absolutely have to accuse me of being a liberal in order to make your arguments work, I sure can't stop you. But you're doing yourself a disservice by arguing with a make-believe bad guy.

Nate...many of your other posts strongly argue against your own assertions just now which I find rather humorous.

Trust me, there are many things that I cannot stand about Bush...immigration, massive spending on liberal social programs, etc.

I'm not a Republican and barely voted for Bush in 2000....after 9/11, I was definitely voting for him again in 2004 which I did.

2008 will be interesting. McStain will never get my vote and neither will Hillary.

OA,

Have some more kool-aid, dude, It's already damaged your brain enough to cause total blindness to the real world out there.

If you want to make fun of people who worship their one and only Creator then go ahead, You are a free American, Just like I'm free, Except I choose to be thankful for my freedom, like any normal human being should, and we Christians are ecspecially thankful for our freedom, because we have a oneness with who made us, and it's only because of the Grace of Almighty God that we are able to breath another breath of fresh air and live to tell about, and that's why I'm thankful to have someone who is looking out for mine and yours freedom, and that someone, is President George W. Bush, Thank God! Although you seem to regret your freedom at the present, but hey, If you want to keep your head in that sack of yours, blinded by all that liberal diseasing corruption GO AHEAD, I'm not going to stop you! I've got too much to be thankful for to sit around and argue about some liberal sickness! and I'll tell you what, If America winds up in the mess it was in the late nineties? You'll wish that Christian Conservatives were still in control of American affairs, but I'll tell you another thing, I won't fear, No sir! because God is going to take care of me, and all my fellow Christians out in this cruel and un-just society of mean liberal people that we live in, and even more than that, there is going to be one of the Greatest revivals in this country that anybody has ever seen before, The Love of God is going to spread across the land like a raging wind, and nothing in its path will stop it, because when the Love of God moves nothing is too powerful to stand in the way! People, will once again; see the dire necessity that has been needed to Accomplish the force of GOOD in a world of evil, Dictated by a bunch of liberal democrats!! and It's NO laughing matter either, and then YOU'LL SEE my friend, Exactly what I'm talking about!

But, If you want to go ahead and make it a joke? Fine, See how you like it being the mockery of thousands of your own peers and your own party, Boy, that would be the day would'nt it? Yep, it would be, and the only difference - you'll be all alone, with your so-called friends, Who are they? LIBERALS, Are they your friends? NOPE, They don't care one ioda about you or what your needs are, So you better be Ed. yourself to the real threat that faces this Nation and what can harm us the most, What's that? AGAIN, A LIBERAL RUN GOVERNMENT!! SO, What now? WAKE UP I SAID, GET OFF THE LIBERAL SLEEPING PILLS!! Or whatever liberals do the most!!

The force of GOOD!...WILL...PREVAIL! My Friends!!

Make no mistake!!

Jeremiah

Man, if you want to see the difference between liberals and conservatives just compare and contrast the posts of orangealert and Jeremiah. Dark, depressed, angry and unhinged vs bright, happy, thankful and blessed.

Talk about a stark contrast! No wonder libs keep losing election after election!

Dear Bob,

Bob, I really appreciate your uplifting spirit, and all your nice comments. I appreciate every conservative here!

Just remember, to Give God the Glory and he'll make you a shining light for those who truly need him in this ol world of sin.

Thanks!

Jeremiah

Warriornation says,

-"Nate...many of your other posts strongly argue against your own assertions just now which I find rather humorous."

Would you care to provide any examples?

Rico,
Thanks for the considered response as always. (I was off on a cycling weekend and didn’t get back till this AM.) Glad to meet you on this battlefield, this might be new ground for us.

Speaking of battlefields, the broad term is used when referring to a place where the military has jurisdiction over civilian authorities; simple enough I think. The process of accusation and review hasn’t changed. The method of investigation did change with the Patriot Act in that investigative authorities may now share information. The legislation which clarified the US position on detainees hasn’t changed that. I know you’re not really confused about “citizenship” that one is a simple matter of law and easily determined. And, as I explained before “combatant” is either legal or illegal, we, in this thread are concerned with the illegal variety. See my post earlier, including citations to clarify the current (and historic) definition. The President; as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, after receiving a declaration of war, or in powers granted him by Congress, has the authority to designate combatants; the legality of that combatant is determined by the military according to the accepted definition. Nothing new here.

But, you have hit on two concerns for a conservative; Thing 1, civil and military authorities, along with the CIA, and the FBI all sharing information and conducting joint or combined efforts to investigate, prevent, apprehend and detain smacks of the KGB. We are in desperate times, even if Nancy Pelosi thinks homicide bombings are a Republican conspiracy, you and I know the GWOT is much more serious than a partisan argument about the President’s desire to selectively suspend habeas corpus for individuals. This btw has been the right of every President since Geo. Washington in time of war. I mentioned earlier about the issue of “war” and how this applies to the WOT; the subject has been litigated and the courts are convinced that the AUMF bolsters the Administrations contention that we are at war. Subject closed. (Okay, Lincoln’s wholesale suspension of HC was ruled out by the courts, but in that case civilian courts were available to the detainees and all of the detainees in question were American citizens; this was an insurrection not a war with a foreign entity; different set of rules.)

But getting back to Thing 1; those accused or investigated using Patriot don’t have a sunset, which brings me to thing 2; when does the “war” end and when do we put away these special rules? Thousands of Germans were held in the US during the second world war; no one remotely thought they had a right to counsel in the US; no judge demanded their presence (habeas corpus) but, and here you and I agree completely, the detainees were repatriated except those charged with war crimes, when hostilities ceased. How does that happen in the current conflict?

Here’s where we part company; you would wish for a sunset that allows these thugs to be sent back to the “battlefield” whereas I would ask that they be repatriated with their home country. Your solution means more dead Americans; mine means more brutally tortured thugs; Hobson’s choice?

But, for the moment let’s get back to your “accusation” theory. Currently, and without the new Congressional legislation, the concept you put forth for accusing Bob is, and always has been viable for accusation. But the Administration has made it very clear that even the accused receive a review by military authorities. The new legislation allows each detainee to have a civil review by the second highest court in the land; something unprecedented in modern warfare. So accuse Bob and have him picked up after every intelligence agency and law enforcement authority has examined him and his family and his business partners closer than his proctologist. You are the one that would face the full wrath of the legal system, not Bob for making false claims.

Now let’s assume that Ricorun has been detained, and rolled on Bob! Ricorun now accuses Bob of treason by some tenuous relationship to Ricorun and his bomb making buddies, further Bob plays poker with the Bomb Brothers while they plan and build bombs. Bob would be scooped up faster than you can say, “Bob’s your uncle” and this full weight of the American Justice system better find something wrong with Bob, or Ricorun’s a$$ is in deep dookey! Get me? Think McCarthy Senate hearings; can you name for me one innocent person “ruined” by these proceedings? No, you can’t because it didn’t happen. And nothing in our legal system has changed sufficiently to make this a realistic possibility anytime soon.

Does Bob have the right to face his accusers and see the evidence presented against him? According to our current system, a judge would have access to the information and would have the authority to compel the government to supply the information or drop the charges. Add to that now the second highest court in the country will be the tribunal overseeing this process. Still scared of abuse? I’m not, but then I’m married to a lawyer, my lawyer has standing to inquire.

I respectfully disagree that the current legislation won’t stand judicial review; I believe you can indict a ham sandwich and some FOT (Friend of the Terrorists) can, and indubitably will bring suit to tie this thing up for years; the Court will ultimately send the legislation back to Congress with some tweaking, but the legislation will survive, if somewhat different.

Hope you stop by to read this and show me where I'm wrong.

Nate,
Good to enjoin you in this debate, once again, reasoned as always. Thanks.

Re: Legislation defining “battlefield” I don’t believe the legislation needs to re-invent the wheel; the battlefield designation has stood for the entire history of this country. Let’s agree that the definition stands; Congress did. Don’t forget, by our Constitution the President is Commander in Chief of all armed forces; this is his job. Congress decides what a war is and the military decides where the battlefield is. During Vietnam Congress decided that the battle may not be fought in certain theatres (Hanoi), and this was disastrous!

President Nixon at the time was so focused on Kissinger getting a peace accord he allowed Congress to dictate the terms of the battle; very bad move. I’d give you some eyewitness accounts of just how bad this was, but suffice to say that when the enemy knows where you’re going to engage, and when you’re going to get there, and how you’re going to fight … well, we lost a lot of good men because of this folly.

But, please don't tell me you think Padilla is innocent because he wasn't captured on a battlefield. Neither was Richard Reed, but you can't argue that these morons aren't engaged in the WOT any more than Mohamed Atta who was also in the United States at the time of the attack.

The quote you provided from Bush’s briefing was not contested by the Court, the Court ruled on the due process issue, which only applies to citizens. Although I think Hamdi was a bad decision; the Court nevertheless gave the Administration the task of getting the legislation recently passed by both houses;

“Justice O’Connor, joined by The Chief Justice, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Breyer, concluded that although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged in this case, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker.”

Bane,

I certainly would not argue that Padilla is innocent just because of the circumstances of his arrest. The thing that most troubles that we wouldn't be discussing the case at all had Padilla's lawyers not forced the Bush administration to change its course, and blah, blah... you are throughly familiar with my position by now, I'm sure.

-"the battlefield designation has stood for the entire history of this country."

Yes, but again, Bush's handling of the Padilla case betrays some contempt for that definition. Maybe things will be handled differently now.

-"Congress decides what a war is and the military decides where the battlefield is."

Agreed, so long as "battlefield" remains outside the borders of the U.S. The moment it comes inside, I have real serious probems with the military and/or its CiC.

The points you make in your reply to Ricorun are well stated. I'll let him address those if he has time, but I would like to say that the confidence I have (and share with you in many respects) in the robustness and safety of our justice system has had to be fought for, hard. I cannot stress enough, that if the Bush administration had been allowed to do its bidding unhindered, there would be more citizens arrested at home, imprisoned in secret, and denied access to an attorney. The adminstration also made it clear that they would try such people outside the criminal justice system, using secret evidence and secret witnesses. How widespread this would become, I have no idea. I really don't like that it even happened once, and it has made me real suspicious of the President's judgement.

-"The legislation allows the detainees to have the facts reviewed by a civil court. This, I think satisfies all remaining objections you may have."

I have found myself objecting much less strenuously to the new legislation in recent days, thanks in part to comments such as yours. As I said, perhaps things will be better now.

Thanks for your comments, interesting as ever.

Bane: "Speaking of battlefields, the broad term is used when referring to a place where the military has jurisdiction over civilian authorities; simple enough I think."

Of that I'm not so sure. Does crossing an American border constitute a "battlefield"? If not, why not? If so, what is the acceptable latency between crossing the border and the accusation, or whatever other criterion that may come into play? In short, I think you and I both know that that distinction no longer applies. The "battlefield" is everywhere. But it is also "nowhere" in the sense that it is now, and will always remain, difficult to distinguish an "enemy combatant" from, well, a non-combatant.

"I know you’re not really confused about “citizenship”

No, I don't think I am (but then again, you know how lawyers are). Rather, I was essentially asking, what does it matter? Ultimately, if our laws don't coincide with the laws of other nations, coincident with international law, then problems remain. That, in a nutshell, is my contention. And mark my words... it will become so for the Supreme Court, eventually. And that is also a problem. Congress could have addressed the issue, but they chose not to. And in choosing not to, they have set the Court up to be the fall guy.

Here’s where we part company; you would wish for a sunset that allows these thugs to be sent back to the “battlefield” whereas I would ask that they be repatriated with their home country. Your solution means more dead Americans; mine means more brutally tortured thugs; Hobson’s choice?"

With all due respect, and while I also respect your right to speak for yourself, I'm not so sure I'd agree with with either your conclusion as it pertains to me, nor your conclusion as it pertains to you! Lol! For one thing, I am certainly not advocating sending "thugs" back to the "battlefield". Rather, I am arguing that it is not only our constitutional duty, but our moral duty, to distinguish as best we can, thugs from non-thugs. And it seems to me that habeas corpus rights, whatever the context, are essential. That is, as you pointed out in your response to Nate, the meat of the buscuit. If not on any other basis, that will be the one upon which the courts will kick the can back to congress. But allow me to continue, though on lesser grounds.

As to whether or not that distinction (thug v. non-thug) is made on the basis "probable cause" or "reasonable cause", I'm willing to negotiate. And I would guess the courts are as well. This is, after all, "war", and these guys were apprehended on what could be defined as a "battlefield", at least loosely, depending upon how you define both "war" and "battlefield". And both those terms, it seems to me, have to be more stringently defined if we expect any definition therein to pass judicial muster. After all, we are requesting the courts to make special exceptions on the basis of the fact that "we are at war" and are dealing with "combatants" captured on the "battlefield". But congress didn't address those distinctions, at least not well -- even though they were fully aware of Padilla and Reid. And that, I would argue, is another problem. That problem is compounded by the legal definition of "citizen". Citizen of what? If a guy is apprehended on foreign soil, how does that pertain to us? And if the nation in which he was apprehended has granted partial or general amnesty (which is now the case in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan) for those in the group he is accused of belonging, where do we stand?

Then there's the definition of what constitutes "war". That becomes especially problematic in light of the fact that in both Afghanistan and Iraq we have recognized new governments, and both of those governments have called for amnesty for previous combatants, at least within certain categories. The same is now true of Pakistan. Those definitions may or may not dovetail with our own. But certainly they don't always. So who gets jurisdiction? I don't think that question was adequately addressed by congress, either. Then again, I'm not a lawyer. Then again, I don't think any lawyer could give you an opinion which, properly contested (and it will be), isn't going to make it to the Supreme Court.

Finally, I'm guessing that you, Bane, don't really want those found to be "thugs" to be repatriated, especially considering the fact that Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan have offered all but the most severe "thugs" amnesty. But that certainly complicates things, doesn't it? But here's the third consideration: US laws have essentially no jurisdiction on foreign soil. Thus, if our laws don't coincide with those of any foreign entity which may pertain, especially if our jurisdiction isn't likely to, problems may occur. What problems? Well, for one, recruitment. For another, dispersal. How many Arabic and Farsi speakers do you think we have? You want them to sit in on interrogations? I certainly wouldn't. How about you?

The sadest part about it all is that these issues should have been addressed long before now. But they weren't. And sadly, they haven't now either. But what did anyone really expect just before elections? It shouldn't matter, but it does. And on some issues it is more understandable than others. Unfortunately, because it was presented to congress at the time it was, and because congress handled it in the way it did, it won't be revisited for a while. But it will. There are too many unanswered questions, it seems to me.

And still we go on …
If you’ll allow me to respond to both at once, as I don’t think I have the mental acumen to engage in two wars in two theaters; unlike Bush who has proven he can. Sorry, just thought I’d toss some red meat at the lurkers that are still following our discussion.

As a conservative I fully understand and empathize with Nate’s concerns regarding potential abuse, the government does very few things well; print money, make war; kill people, and blow things up. They’re not particularly good at delivering the mail, so how can they be trusted with something as basic in our justice system as habeas corpus? At the same time, can the government be trusted to protect our rights while simultaneously protecting our persons? This great experiment requires that we vigorously debate the means and methodology by which we try. Unlike other governments that guarantee the protection of the person at the expense of the rights; or the government that protects itself to the exclusion of the citizens, the US government is, by nature and design responsive to the very people that are its charge. Nate, I have full faith that our government will respond correctly, if even only in the long run.

Unfortunately, a battlefield may not always be outside of the borders, remember that the other war the US lost was the second war with England in 1812; fought within our borders and we got our collective a$$e$ smacked! Our capital was destroyed and our citizens were attacked in their homes and businesses. It could happen again and Article I and Article II gives us the roadmap for dealing with this contingency.

Nate, you disparage Bush for zealously executing the charge we have given him, yet in every instance the courts have agreed, or have clarified for the administration what their duties and responsibilities are. It is in response to these directives that this legislation was written. I don’t believe it would have been possible, practical nor judicious for Congress to attempt to legislate the issue before the courts gave direction.

I believe it was Truman who once said, and I must paraphrase here because I don’t recall the exact quote, but it went something like this, if a man is walking down a road and ten problems are walking toward him, if he holds his ground most of them will fall in the ditch before he ever has to face them. Ah, Kansan homilies! The point is that neither the President nor Congress should be expected to assume every possible manifestation that might be a threat to our liberties. I, frankly wouldn’t want them to; solving issues that don’t exist can only mean more restrictions of our freedoms.

Rico, I don’t concur that our laws must somehow be “coincident with international law.” Which part of the international communities are you speaking of? There are laws in East Timor that we would never consider synchronized with US law, Sha’ria Law is certainly international but, seriously do you want US law consistent with laws that dictate daily living? No, the US uses our laws, precedents, the Constitution and English Common Law as the basis for our system of justice. (See: Justice Scalia, "It will seem much more like real legal opinion if one can cite a foreign opinion to support the philosophic, moral, or religious conclusion or pronouncement. You can put it right there in the opinion. It looks like legal opinion. It says so and so versus so and so. I dare say that few of us here would want our life or liberty subject to the dispensation of French or Italian criminal justice.")

The standard for designating a combatant illegal or legal is a simple one on the battlefield, fighting our troops; combatant. Fighting our troops without uniform, without the flag of an enemy country; illegal combatant. Neither designation requires due process; neither designation requires reasonable cause, probable cause, or manifest cause, or Santa Cause! This is a wartime designation over which the courts, up till now, had no jurisdiction. The waters became muddied because the enemy doesn’t follow our rules. The issue of war is fairly simple as well, Congress declares it, Article II gives the President the authority to engage it. The courts have already ruled that the AUMF is tantamount to war for the purposes of Article II, so that part at least is settled. Don’t you feel better now?

There will be debate for generations to the courts role in interpretation of Article II, I believe the opinion will swing back to the constitutionalist view that the Supreme Court doesn’t have authority over the President’s actions as Commander in Chief in time of war and should, therefore back off. You, I believe look to the SC to resolve every issue, adjudicate every dispute and clarify every grey area of our government. I could continue to build a straw man from your writings, and we could argue endlessly about the role of the Supreme Court in war, or we can just declare it a war zone and presto … problem solved.

Still, I found myself laughing with tears in my eyes when I read, “I don't think any lawyer could give you an opinion … “I couldn’t read any farther; I’ve never met a lawyer that didn’t have an opinion on everything!

Finally, to the repatriation and amenity issue. The majority of illegal combatants would not be repatriated to the Afghanistan or Iraq; as they’re not Afghan or Iraqi, they would be sent back to Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, or any of a dozen places where they would be inhumanly tortured or summarily put to death. Iraqis or Afghans might be repatriated provided they didn’t actively engage Americans in illegal wartime activities. And, I know you’re going to hate this, the Iraqi and Afghan governments get to decide to whom this applies. I said in the beginning of all of this; this could be the greatest gamble we have ever engaged in, and could pay the greatest dividends for future generations; but we don’t get to decide what type of government or what type of representation the Iraqi or Afghan people get. We only get to help them make it happen by removing the roadblocks to their choice.

I typed this but forgot to paste it on to the response;
"I am arguing that it is not only our constitutional duty, but our moral duty, to distinguish as best we can, thugs from non-thugs. And it seems to me that habeas corpus rights, whatever the context, are essential.

If, by that, we're still talking about the detainees; non-cititzens aren't entitled to habeas corpus. A court cannot compel the government to produce a non-citizen that a court, any court may have jurisdiction.

Bane: "Which part of the international communities are you speaking of?"

Well it sure as heck wasn't East Timor, lol! Specifically, I was thinking of two contexts of particular relevance: (1) international treaties which we signed, including but not limited to the Geneva Conventions, and (2) laws which relate to those nations in which the so-called "black prisons" operated.

The issue of war is fairly simple as well, Congress declares it, Article II gives the President the authority to engage it. The courts have already ruled that the AUMF is tantamount to war for the purposes of Article II, so that part at least is settled. Don’t you feel better now?

I guess I'd feel better if you could explain to me in what (legal) sense we are still in a state of war with either Afghanistan or Iraq. On the one hand, no articles of surrender have been drawn. On the other hand, in both cases the previous regimes are gone and new regimes have been established and recognized. So it seems to me that in both cases the state of war is over, at least technically and I believe legally. That to me is an important issue. You stated that you believe I "look to the SC to resolve every issue, adjudicate every dispute and clarify every grey area of our government." That's not true. While it is true that I take it as a fact that courts exist precisely to clarify grey areas in our government and elsewhere (what other purpose do they serve?), I believe the SC should take up only significant issues. And in that respect I think whether or not individuals are entitled to habeas corpus rights, or what the definition of "war" is, apply. And no, I do not think the definition of either should be solely left to the president -- no matter who he or she might be. But I do believe that if a definition of "war" properly applies, then the president does have heightened powers under Article II.

"If, by that, we're still talking about the detainees; non-cititzens aren't entitled to habeas corpus. A court cannot compel the government to produce a non-citizen that a court, any court may have jurisdiction."

What I was talking about does indeed include this issue. So what you're saying is... it's fine with you if we pick up any non-citizen anywhere in the world (even in the US) and hold him or her indefinitely without charge, without a hearing, without benefit of legal counsel, for any reason?

Rico,
We’ve strayed so far off the map now, I’m not sure we’ll ever find our way back.

But, onward old friend!

International law is a nebulous term which means, “Western European laws and precepts with which we find commonality and under which I can make an argument when no such argument exists in our jurisprudence.” If we’ve signed a treaty, then it is covered under our law, if we have reached agreement with another country to hold detainees during conflict, then that agreement or treaty is covered under our laws. Remember the Constitution holds the US to treaties signed as law. Under your strict guidelines, international law would include a treaty we have in force with Kuwait to provide judicial assistance (signed 12-21-78; 01/02/79 in Washington) and I’m sure that Iran objects to this treaty as they have called upon all Muslim countries to enforce Sha’ria Law! Should Iran's laws supercede our treaty? Iran doesn’t accept the Evil Satan’s influence in any Muslim country especially regarding acts of law and enforcement. We have treaties with Syria that Israel would object to, and has. Again, I ask, which international law are you willing to put our country under?

In re: war; the issue of the AUMF gives Bush war powers as long as the threat exists; don’t like it? Blame Congress they’re the ones that weaseled out of their responsibility to declare war! The question of the state of war has been adjudicated in several cases in the past four years, Padilla and Hamdi both let stand the issue, agreeing with lower courts that AUMF establishes a state of war.

Regarding the Supreme Court; the Constitution established the courts system, and designated courts up to and including the Supreme Court for the purpose of an independent judiciary. In 1802 the Supreme Court established itself as the arbiter of “constitutionality” (Marbury v. Madison). To remain co-equal the legislature has the ability and the responsibility to reaccept legislation returned by the SC and adjust the language to comply with the Constitution; change the Constitution to fit the law, kill the law where it stands or reject the court’s determination and press on without foundation. The SC recognizes that in some cases Congress may decide constitutionality (Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966),) Also, in the period 1967-1990 Congress overturned 124 Supreme Court and 220 lower court decisions interpreting Federal law. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 alone overrode nine Supreme Court decisions that had narrowed previous interpretations of law.

Finally, *sighs* the Constitution's habeas corpus does not apply to non-citizens, but we do have treaties with most civilized countries to make arrangements for their citizens held in US custody. Because of these treaties we cannot pick up anyone anywhere in the world, including the US had hold them incommunicado unless … are you ready? … unless they’re an illegal combatant.

Here you guys are! A posted a thing for you two on the "The End of Our War" thread, but I should have looked around first.

A couple of days ago, Strange_guy pointed me (us) to the forum at redstate.com. Strange_guy's not the greatest debate partner, but I'm hooked on the site now, and I think both of you would like it too.

The American people are Very happy to have George W Bush AS Their President he has come out swing Good For him He should tell The american people what the dmeocrats are doing for americanPeople Nothing the Repbuilcans are doing the people Busines not in engaging In Attacks And Party of name Calling Which is childish behavior I am Proud Repbuilcan not Democrats basher

Patti, I'm dialing 911 right now, but I need you to stay with me here. We'll get you help. You need to lay down and stay calm, but don't put the phone dow...

Hello, are you still there? Patti?

Whoa, Nate!
You're a funny guy! Ever thought of taking your act on the road?