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

**NicolasOL** · 07-11-2010, 12:39 AM

Sorry, my misunderstanding. For some reason I had a neural short circuit and thought you were doing a technique used by other forumgoers and assigning hero worship of the redcoats to me.

Apologies.

Ah, no worries -- overuse of pronouns.

I was referring to the Founding Fathers who held captured British soldiers without trial. They understood that taking and holding prisoners was a part of war and that such prisoners would be under military control and, ultimately, under the control of the Commander in Chief. No way did they envision a "convict or release" policy for enemy combatants. Indeed, the idea would be ludicrous -- It was not a crime for a British citizen to be a British soldier and engaged in war with the Americans! Any criminal prosecution for this would have been laughable and today would be viewed as a violation of the laws of war in itself.

I'm still not seeing how the power is given to the POTUS to say, without any kind of review, "hey, military - go pick up people in other countries and hold them indefinitely." If they don't have to be fighting - i.e. not combatants, then why is it a military matter? Not to put too fine a point on it, but it is because the military goes in and gets them, and they are under the command of the President (Article 2, Section 2). Enemy combatants don't have to be in the act of fighting to be subject to attack by our forces, of course. You don't think our heroes attacked redcoats who were sitting in their fort minding their own business? Or out for a Sunday stroll? Imagine a scene like this: YouTube - The Patriot British are ambushed

(By the way, if you take away the power of the military to capture enemy fighters and hold them prisoner you'll get more of the summary executions you see at the conclusion of that ambush.)

It is an odd thing, indeed, to suggest that a soldier may attack and kill an enemy soldier, but he must get permission from a civilian judge to do the more humane thing -- hold him as a prisoner. Yet you wish to imagine that the Constitution contains a clause requiring just that. Nowhere does the Constitution allow judicial review of war-making decisions, and -- I'm sorry -- but it is non-sensical to believe that its drafters intended it for the reasons we've already discussed.

Again, I am in good company in holding this opinion as more than 200 years of history suggests and the best and brightest of the Bush and Obama administrations will attest.

07-11-2010, 12:39 AM	#20
NicolasOL Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 477 Senior Member	Sorry, my misunderstanding. For some reason I had a neural short circuit and thought you were doing a technique used by other forumgoers and assigning hero worship of the redcoats to me. Apologies. Ah, no worries -- overuse of pronouns. I was referring to the Founding Fathers who held captured British soldiers without trial. They understood that taking and holding prisoners was a part of war and that such prisoners would be under military control and, ultimately, under the control of the Commander in Chief. No way did they envision a "convict or release" policy for enemy combatants. Indeed, the idea would be ludicrous -- It was not a crime for a British citizen to be a British soldier and engaged in war with the Americans! Any criminal prosecution for this would have been laughable and today would be viewed as a violation of the laws of war in itself. I'm still not seeing how the power is given to the POTUS to say, without any kind of review, "hey, military - go pick up people in other countries and hold them indefinitely." If they don't have to be fighting - i.e. not combatants, then why is it a military matter? Not to put too fine a point on it, but it is because the military goes in and gets them, and they are under the command of the President (Article 2, Section 2). Enemy combatants don't have to be in the act of fighting to be subject to attack by our forces, of course. You don't think our heroes attacked redcoats who were sitting in their fort minding their own business? Or out for a Sunday stroll? Imagine a scene like this: YouTube - The Patriot British are ambushed (By the way, if you take away the power of the military to capture enemy fighters and hold them prisoner you'll get more of the summary executions you see at the conclusion of that ambush.) It is an odd thing, indeed, to suggest that a soldier may attack and kill an enemy soldier, but he must get permission from a civilian judge to do the more humane thing -- hold him as a prisoner. Yet you wish to imagine that the Constitution contains a clause requiring just that. Nowhere does the Constitution allow judicial review of war-making decisions, and -- I'm sorry -- but it is non-sensical to believe that its drafters intended it for the reasons we've already discussed. Again, I am in good company in holding this opinion as more than 200 years of history suggests and the best and brightest of the Bush and Obama administrations will attest.
	Quote