If this is truly a constitutional issue, then i have only one thought.
Integrity.

Its a concept that i think moral crusaders everywhere can grasp. In simple human terms:

I will not lie, cheat, steal, commit any act of intentional dishonesty or tolerate those who do.

Integrity in my mind is paramount. If you screw up, make a mistake, or do something wrong, you should admit to it, even if it hurts. Better that then quibble and errode your person. At the end of the day, a man is only as good as his word. If you don't have that, you have nothing.

In summary, If we fail to adhere to the principles on which our nation is founded, our nation becomes nothing but a lie. I might add that George W bush, did infact, say, "Stop throwing the constitution in my face, it's just a god damn piece of paper".

There is NO excuse for ANY president to say that in ANY context. It's my opinion that any president who says that, should be immediatly removed from office. It shows willful disregard for the framework and foundation of our country, and willingness to tap dance around our laws to get what he wants, the very action of which is a willful display of how he lacks integrity.

( Im a big fan of integrity in case you haven't noticed. :rotfl: )

Having said that, i also realize that according the ahh... "combatants" the same rights we have, is a really, Really, REALLY, hard pill to swallow. I can't say i like it much.

If that's so then why are you squandering it on this?

So, when we capture one of them, do we need to read them the miranda rights?:shifty:
I think all 3 branches of our gov't are out of control. Time to hit ctrl-alt-del. Term limit all of them.:up:

One of the tests of a democracy is whether we are willing (not forced) to recognize rights of those we intensely dislike.

So what separates you from the enemy? :nope:

heaven forfend.

I actually kind of agree with Wosman.

Which do you guys think is more effective against suspected insurgents?:

In Iraq, it has been common practice to round up the entire male population of a village that is suspected of harboring an insurgent. They would first cordon off the village. Then break down the front door of each house and humiliate the man in front of his family. Then they would ship them off to a military prison in Iraq where they would likely remain for quite a while until someone got around to talking to them. My source for this is Thomas Rick's _Fiasco_.

In post WWII Germany, there was a brief period of insurgency by the group known as the Werewolves. They were involved in beheading people by using wires strung across roads, snipings, and poisonings. When the US Army suspected a village was harboring one of these people, they would arrive at the village and line up the three most likely suspects. Then they would ask if the villagers had any suggestions. Then they would kill them and leave.

I think that Guantanamo type camps (they exist in Iraq as well) are one of the dumbest things we could be doing on so many levels.

PD

I hate to say it, but I agree with Scalia's take on this one. We have zero actionable intelligence for the most part to begin with on terrorists. And the military are not cops, nor are they trained to be, nor is in their psychology. They _are_ the executioner.

PD

I can see that the military are not a subtle instrument, or an investigative one, but if any arm of any nation is going to detain foreign nationals without trial or challenge for 7 years, the burden of proof is definitely on them. Not necessarily the military, though.

Response from Chez McCain - http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2...eme_court.html

Not me. An enemy that knows he will be executed if he tries to surrender will make every fight a fight to the death, and that translates into way more friendly casualties. I see no reason to make our soldiers job tougher than it already is.

Isn't that kind of the idea for them? Virgins and all? I would be interested in knowing how many insurgents in Iraq/Afghanistan surrender.

PD

Look the fact of the matter is writ of Habeas corpus (Supension Clause Article 1 Sec 9) of the Constitution is specifically enumerated to be between the American people and the federal government for the purpose of protecting Americans from random arrest and imprisonment. Therefore it is not extended to aliens outside the USA, especially a flagless, no-nation enemy that we are at war with.

In the past the SCOTUS has denied habeas corpus many times to foreign enemies. We did it to the nazi's a number of times. In fact in one case a justice said the following:

This quote clearly sets binding precedent. Also, the court's recent ruling ignores the fact that Guantanamo Bay is not within the judical authority of our court system because it is not a sovereign American territory. Habeas corpus only extends to where federal courts have jurisdiction.

There are already liberal judges out there that claim that these terrorist scum can march right in and demand constitutional rights. They will be encouraged to make things up as they go. Maybe they will want access to classified military information. They may subpoena our soldiers right out of the battle field. These troops who were fighting a war, in the heat of battle, and made decisions based on these circumstances will now have to give testimony and be cross-examined by lawyers as to why they did what they did:

"Did you read the enemy their Miranda Rights?"
"Well because of this stupid ruling, yes I did sir."
"Ahh, but the defendant doesn't speak english and you had no arabic translator so therefore my clients rights were violated."

There could be some terrorist bomb about to go off and we need to question these terrorists but now they can demand access to a lawyer which would stop all questioning and also the discovery of any lifesaving intelligence. Full trials with the presumption of innocence and all other rights guaranteed to an American citizen will given to terrorists who were captured in the battlefield already fighting against us where guilt by association has already been established? I can imagine the lawyers out their licking their chops over the money they can make suing the federal government and the military and cashing in those big settlements.

Right now if I was President Bush I would take a page out of the book of Abraham Lincoln whom is considered to be one of our nations greatest Presidents. During the civil war Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and had people like these five justices and anyone else that would compromise the war thrown in jail for sedition. This is exactly what should be done in this case and the president should ignore this ruling. The SCOTUS has no business making itself the commander in chief of the US military and this ruling does just that. It takes away the Presidents ability to wage war against the enemy. If anyone has violated our Constitution it is the Supreme Court.

[QUOTE=The WosMan]Look the fact of the matter is writ of Habeas corpus (Supension Clause Article 1 Sec 9) of the Constitution is specifically enumerated to be between the American people and the federal government for the purpose of protecting Americans from random arrest and imprisonment. Therefore it is not extended to aliens outside the USA, especially a flagless, no-nation enemy that we are at war with. [QUOTE}

I am not seeing anywhere in Article 1 Section 9 where it states that any limitations to only citizens. Could you point out the exact phrase you are using to support your argument?

It may have set a precedent but even if it does, the Supreme Court is not obligated to follow it if they deem the situation appropriate. Precedents are not universally binding.

As whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction, I would like to refer to Article Three, Section Section 2 of the Constitution which is quoted below

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

I believe this section gives the Supreme Court authority to judge over this issue.

Update - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7470405.stm
This one was going to happen sooner or later, what happens with more problematic inmates remains to be seen.

So do you and this Matthew guy think we ought to adopt old Khans hostile city pacification program where if they resisted his demand for surrender the city is sacked, razed and it's population put to the sword, or do you figure that what we call torture these days Ghengis would call just kidding around? :p