DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Switiespils** · 07-10-2010, 08:27 PM

I guess, although I don't believe any sort of "construction" rule needs to be applied. It's unmistakably clear -- the President is the Commander in Chief of the military. Thus, the decisions about how the military carries out its war-making function are his, not the Judiciary's. The conduct of armed hostilities including the identification, capture and detention of enemy combatants are military functions.

I gather your question may be based on the false premise that the country must be in a declared state of war for the Commander-in-Chief power to apply. If so, this is simply incorrect; you'll see that no such proviso is attached to that grant of power.

But to answer your question ... No more so than any other enemy. They often disguise themselves as civilians and conduct sneak attacks (mostly in violation of the laws of war, by the way), which may make identifying and taking them out of the fight more challenging. But this does not change the fact that this role is reserved to the President as Commander in Chief (and his designees, of course), not the Judiciary.

Well, I'm trying to put myself back into the mindset of the late 1700s. I have a hard time believing that they would have supported the endless detention of these men - it was exactly the sort of thing that the British would have done, and they were still pretty sensitive to that. So, It seems to me that there isn't an intent in there to allow for unending detention of civilians.

07-10-2010, 08:27 PM	#11
Switiespils Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 619 Senior Member	I guess, although I don't believe any sort of "construction" rule needs to be applied. It's unmistakably clear -- the President is the Commander in Chief of the military. Thus, the decisions about how the military carries out its war-making function are his, not the Judiciary's. The conduct of armed hostilities including the identification, capture and detention of enemy combatants are military functions. I gather your question may be based on the false premise that the country must be in a declared state of war for the Commander-in-Chief power to apply. If so, this is simply incorrect; you'll see that no such proviso is attached to that grant of power. But to answer your question ... No more so than any other enemy. They often disguise themselves as civilians and conduct sneak attacks (mostly in violation of the laws of war, by the way), which may make identifying and taking them out of the fight more challenging. But this does not change the fact that this role is reserved to the President as Commander in Chief (and his designees, of course), not the Judiciary. Well, I'm trying to put myself back into the mindset of the late 1700s. I have a hard time believing that they would have supported the endless detention of these men - it was exactly the sort of thing that the British would have done, and they were still pretty sensitive to that. So, It seems to me that there isn't an intent in there to allow for unending detention of civilians.
	Quote