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

**PaulCameron** · 08-10-2010, 07:02 PM

It seems that there is a fundamental difference between capturing British soldiers during an armed conflict where the British are a clear enemy on Colonial soil, and individuals who may or may not have ever actually held a weapon being captured on soil that may not even be a part of a battlefield that the US is actively (officially at least) involved in. Pakistan comes to mind. Yemen comes to mind. I wonder how many other individuals we've snagged in other places - sovereign countries - where there are not active combat operations in place. Technically, we are not at war in or with Pakistan. Can individuals captured in Pakistan be held this way? Under what justification? How about individuals captured by the CIA in Yemen who may at some point hold a weapon, but who have not yet? Under what justification?

There's no limitation of the Commander in Chief's power to domestic soil, so to speak. Fast forward a little to the Barbary Wars. Under the leadership of President Thomas Jefferson, the U.S. Navy (and Marines) took prisoners in the prosecution of that foreign armed conflict. The President did not turn these folks over to the domestic criminal justice system to be convicted or released. He had his military hold them as prisoners but eventually turned them over to the Bashaw of Tripoli as part of the 1805 peace treaty negotiated by Tobias Lear, which ended the conflict. They were military prisoners; not under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary. And this caused no great stir at the time among our mostly still-living heroes who drafted, signed and ratified the Constitution; and certainly the celebrated drafter of our Declaration of Independence had no problem with it.

08-10-2010, 07:02 PM	#28
PaulCameron Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 337 Senior Member	It seems that there is a fundamental difference between capturing British soldiers during an armed conflict where the British are a clear enemy on Colonial soil, and individuals who may or may not have ever actually held a weapon being captured on soil that may not even be a part of a battlefield that the US is actively (officially at least) involved in. Pakistan comes to mind. Yemen comes to mind. I wonder how many other individuals we've snagged in other places - sovereign countries - where there are not active combat operations in place. Technically, we are not at war in or with Pakistan. Can individuals captured in Pakistan be held this way? Under what justification? How about individuals captured by the CIA in Yemen who may at some point hold a weapon, but who have not yet? Under what justification? There's no limitation of the Commander in Chief's power to domestic soil, so to speak. Fast forward a little to the Barbary Wars. Under the leadership of President Thomas Jefferson, the U.S. Navy (and Marines) took prisoners in the prosecution of that foreign armed conflict. The President did not turn these folks over to the domestic criminal justice system to be convicted or released. He had his military hold them as prisoners but eventually turned them over to the Bashaw of Tripoli as part of the 1805 peace treaty negotiated by Tobias Lear, which ended the conflict. They were military prisoners; not under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary. And this caused no great stir at the time among our mostly still-living heroes who drafted, signed and ratified the Constitution; and certainly the celebrated drafter of our Declaration of Independence had no problem with it.
	Quote