Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 02/04/05 10:02 am:

Oh, yeah. I forgot to mention those of you will argue that they must be guilty of something or else they wouldn't have been rounded up, right?

Maybe - but, how would that be determined without any process?

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 02/04/05 10:27 am:
ex,

I wasn't arguing their side, just presenting it...which is fair.

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 02/04/05 12:17 pm:
They are being classified according to the Geneva conventions ;they are unlawful combatants by Geneva definitions . I have seen no clear evidence that the President is acting outside the Constitution.



Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman S. S. Corp(1948) (this case was also sited by Justice Thomas in the recent HAMDI V. RUMSFELD decision):

"The President, both as Commander-in-Chief and as the Nation's organ for foreign affairs, has available intelligence services whose reports are not and ought not to be published to the world. It would be intolerable that courts, without the relevant information, should review and perhaps nullify actions of the Executive Branch taken on information properly held secret. Nor can courts sit in camera in order to be taken into executive confidences. But even if courts could require full disclosure, the very nature of executive decisions as to foreign policy is political, not judicial. Such decisions are wholly confided by our Constitution to the political departments of the government, Executive and Legislative. They are delicate, complex, and involve large elements of prophecy. They are and should be undertaken only by those directly responsible to the people whose welfare they advance or imperil. They are decisions of a kind for which the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities nor responsibility and which has long been held to belong in the domain of political power not subject to judicial intrusion and inquiry."


Like I said ;the executive has been playing it's role .Now is the time for Congress to act.

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 02/04/05 12:23 pm:
>>>And, if the Constitution said that a President could suspend it during time of crisis, then I'd go along with it. But it doesn't. Period. And, I don't care if Lincoln did it or not.

Bush is NOT above the law, and I know he thinks he is, and you do too.<<<

The Constitutional DOES say so, under Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2:

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

That was the clause that Lincoln used, and it is as applicable today as it was during the Civil War. The US Military and Intelligence offices are not required to put the enemy prisoners forward for a "fair trial" during a time of war if doing so increases the danger to the general public. That is clearly the case here.

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 02/05/05 6:43 am:

Hey El:

Last I checked we haven't rebelled and we haven't been invaded. How ya gonna spin this?

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by brainiacamok on 02/06/05 6:29 pm:
Your post, like many of its type, is weakened by black and white thinking. Oversimplification is the venue of the demagogue.

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 02/07/05 6:56 am:
Excon,

It is pretty clear that the intent od the passage was "time of war".

And if I wanted to get snippy, I could argue that the Constitution doesn't say "invasion of THE UNITED STATES by a foreign power". We invaded Iraq... which makes it a 'time of invasion'. But that's just me being silly.

But the point is that we ARE at war, and the intent of that passage clearly was meant to suspend habeus corpus during time of war in cases where the public safety was effected.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 02/07/05 7:12 am:
Excon,

From your rating of TOM,

>>>They should have been treated according to the Geneva Convention OR the Constitution. <<<

I agree. Under the Geneva Conventions, they are illegal combatants and have no rights under the law. Under the Constitution, they are not citizens, and are no on US soil, and did not commit their crimes on US soil. Therefore, the Constitution doesn't apply to them either. So either one works for me. Thanks for agreeing.

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 02/07/05 7:24 am:

Hello brain:

Demagogue????

Your post is neither a followup or a clairification. You post it as such so I can't rate or comment. That is the quintessential definition of demagoguery.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 02/07/05 7:26 am:

Hello again brain:

And, while I'm at it, YES, my answers are pretty much black and white. I'm not intelligent enough to discern all the shades of gray in the word "all". I shall defer, however, to you in this matter as you have demonstrated such intellectual ingenuity, here on the boards. By the way, who the hell are you?

In any case, please tell me who is part of "all" and who isn't.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by brainiacamok on 02/07/05 5:17 pm:
Hi excon,

Thank you for responding to my comment.

I am fairly new at this site but am well known at several similar sites. I did not intentionally dodge being rateable. Perhaps you can refer me to the FAQ that will explain what I did wrong.

I worry that people choose their politics with more emotion than logic, and without enough sense of humor. Anytime I see "us versus them" type thinking, it leads me to think that the speaker is not in search of truth but rather an enemy to bash for the purpose of venting frustrations. I don't see what is constructive about this.

I'm listening if you want to say more.

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 02/08/05 7:29 am:

Hi braindude,

Calling me a name is just plain rude. I don't think you'll find a FAQ about it.

Besides, I think you're incorrect in your evaluation of me. I don't bash people at all - quite the opposite. In addition, I AM the most logical and funniest expert here.

Go read some of my crap, and tell me that's not so. It's all here for your perusal. I’m listening too.

excon