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

**PPActionnGuys** · 07-10-2010, 08:34 PM

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.

Who said anything about civilians?

Many of the men you are speaking about were involved in conducting a war in which enemy prisoners were taken and held indefinitely under the leadership of their Commander in Chief, George Washington. It most certainly was their intent that future Commanders in Chief would prosecute armed hostilities in a similar fashion, which is why they designated the President to assume that responsibility and not the Legislature or the Judiciary.

07-10-2010, 08:34 PM	#12
PPActionnGuys Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 665 Senior Member	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. Who said anything about civilians? Many of the men you are speaking about were involved in conducting a war in which enemy prisoners were taken and held indefinitely under the leadership of their Commander in Chief, George Washington. It most certainly was their intent that future Commanders in Chief would prosecute armed hostilities in a similar fashion, which is why they designated the President to assume that responsibility and not the Legislature or the Judiciary.
	Quote