Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Seaver
My question is why? Some are Prisoners of War... at NO time EVER did PoW's get a trial. Those that arent fall under the rule of Traitors or Sabateurs, at NO time did they ever get trials, they were simply shot or hanged (being non-Citizens). Name a war when we did and I'd be amazed.
|
Not to mention everything our military is doing in places like Gitmo has been affirmed by the Supreme both historical in cases like Ex parte Quirin, and more recently Rasul v. Bush and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (names might switch, but I'm pretty sure those are correct). All the constitution affords is due process and searches to be reasonable: putting illegal combatants in military tribunals is not unreasonable and not an afront to any due process, why do you have military POW status? So you can seperate and act with military people, sending military personnal to military court is due process, as such those who fight outside the realm of war illegally are not afforded any of the rights of POW or common/civil law.
Also as far as I've heard Bushs actions regarding the wire taps are legit for reasons like Seaver pointed out earlier, plus I think there have been some precedents in the courts (even recently), I might have to look into it... but there is not necessarily anything unreasonable with the president issuing wire taps against a sworn enemy of the consitution in Al Qaeda and its members who we are at war with. I personally would like it to go to the Supreme Court, and maybe get some congressional over sight, but I think it is stupid to have a preconcieved notion because it is Bush that something must automatically be evil and unconstitutional.
I haven't lost any of my freedoms, and there is no price that would let them be taken from me.