Constitution 1, Bush 0

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

And again, the court oversteps its authority, and attempts to legislate AND set foreign policy from the bench, neither of which is within their job description.

As far as it goes, it is very clear. The Constitution DOES NOT apply to enemy combatants who, uniformed or not, are not citizens of the United States. But then, the courts do more to run this country, with the help of millions of greedy lawyers, than the legislative or executive branches do.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
As far as it goes, it is very clear. The Constitution DOES NOT apply to enemy combatants who, uniformed or not, are not citizens of the United States.

Care to quote any laws supporting this?

[storch]

Originally posted by Gunslinger


Point and simple if a US citizen picks up arms against the US in a foreign country charge him w/ treason and be done w/ it.  

I think Bush's main failure here was not declaring war from the begining.  That would have made alot of things very different.

The President cannot declare war the is the prerogative of the the Congress.  He may ask that war be declared, no President has ever been turned down IIRC.

[Murdr]

Originally posted by cpxxx
I think some of you sometimes forget is that while it might protect some terrorists rights. It also protects yours. That is the best weapon against terrorism there is and is why in the end, right will prevail.  If a terrorist suspect can have his constitutional rights taken away then they can take away all your rights too. The price of freedom is sometimes hard to bear but it's worth it.

Not sure what context you are comming from with this.  If the terrorist suspect is an American citizen, they should have constitutional rights.  If its an American citizen captured on the battlefield, I have no problem with their constitutional rights being honored before they are executed for treason   If its a forgein prisoner, human rights yes, Constitutional rights?  BS.