[Arximedus]

Re: O'Sullivan Bere
"Here, this person is actively engaged in attacking the US and encouraging and helping others do the same as an AQ member. AQ is not a nation; it's a criminal organisation IMO. There is no 'war' to be declared against criminals. Even dealing with criminals, self-defence rights exist. IMO, the US and its agents don't have to declare war on each and every criminal they face in order to confront and defend themselves and the public they represent from being assailed by them and it's not the kind of action that the war clause in the Constitution is meant to address"

IMO; Should a U.S. citizen (or any other citizen) be engaged in what is considered a capital criminal action within our own
country laws exist for proper authorities to apperhend (using a required force including death if necessary) and to subject said person to all the required legal ramifications that follow.

If said person (a US. citizen) is operating in a different country and under the laws of that country they not us have if requested and agree by treaty or otherwise to apprehend such person with disposession of their choosing (subject again to treaty and agreements.)

It would seem we have no legal right (except for "Hot Pursuit) to enter a foreign country "sans agreement" and apprehend or kill any one by any means .

To assume we have the right to construct a LAW that would contravene our constitution or any others laws existing within their sovereignty
is absurd.

IMO Regardless of what the framers of the constitution intended the words of the Consitution stand unless our USSC finds otherwise.

To date the Patriot Act had (I believe) not been challenged to ther degree the entire document and the dissent heard in the USSC.

The Irish gentleman who was an insurgent (without refereshing my mind) should not have been tried by the British for acts withinn his own country except as a prisoner of war. (because of the footing of an invaded people, unifor or no uniform.