[doxinwasido]

I don't know so much that they "found out the hard way". I'm more of the opinion that this was the plan right from the get go.

This administration has chosen to look at terrorism as a criminal matter rather than as a hostile act by a foreign enemy.

So didn't the Clinton Administration. Remember Jamie Gerelic and her "wall"?

http://old.nationalreview.com/docume...elick_memo.pdf

[Indidockobeni]

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.



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.

Thanks for your understanding.

I'm asking questions for my own betterment, so I appreciate your indulging me.

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?

[plogypeskelry]

Thanks for your understanding.

I'm asking questions for my own betterment, so I appreciate your indulging me.

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?

FDR had spies shot without a trial no matter where they were captured. He understood national security.

[Qncvqpgfg]

FDR had spies shot without a trial no matter where they were captured. He understood national security.

The fuck does this have do to with the nice discussion that you interrupted?

[BqTyG9eS]

We told him to leave it up to the military.

But he thought he knew better.

[AutoCadPhotoSHOP]

Bah.. it's the same old bullshit. Some of you want to pretend the "war on terror" is a real war. It's not. It's an attempt to justify perpetual police-state policies.

[KernJetenue]

Um, he's not an American.

The courts have made many decisions regarding which rights foreign nationals have in the US court system. Much of our constitution applies, even though they aren't US citizens. After all, if our rights are natural rights of people bestowed by a creator, then those rights exist regardless of nationality, at least where we enforce the law.

[PaulCameron]

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.

[bixlewlyimila]

You're wearing me out.

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 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; certainly the celebrated drafter of our Declaration of Independence had no problem with it.

Wait, wait, wait. Before I respond - is there a typo here? Do you mean "foreign" instead of "domestic" in the first sentence?

[Tveabuti]

Wait, wait, wait. Before I respond - is there a typo here? Do you mean "foreign" instead of "domestic" in the first sentence?

No. You were differentiating the Revolutionary War and the current conflicts on the basis that the British soldiers were captured on our territory (or so I understood). I am saying that makes no difference.

[benderkoz]

No. You were differentiating the Revolutionary War and the current conflicts on the basis that the British soldiers were captured on our territory (or so I understood). I am saying that makes no difference.

Fascinating.

So, basically, if I'm reading you correctly, the POTUS, through the US Military, can act with impunity? That makes him/her a monarch. How does one get the creation of the role of a monarch from the writings of those who'd just thrown the off the yoke of one?

[maxuilg]

Fascinating.

So, basically, if I'm reading you correctly, the POTUS, through the US Military, can act with impunity? That makes him/her a monarch.

Nonsense. He's elected to office and can be voted out. He can also be impeached.

How does one get the creation of the role of a monarch from the writings of those who'd just thrown the off the yoke of one? He'd be employing the strawman fallacy because he ran out of legitimate options.

[Infellgedq]

Nonsense. He's elected to office and can be voted out. He can also be impeached.



He'd be employing the strawman fallacy because he ran out of legitimate options.

So, it's monarch-like powers, except for, what, elections?

What impeachability, since this is all apparently legal?

[SQiTmhuY]

So, it's monarch-like powers, except for, what, elections?

No, it's Commander in Chief powers. The President doesn't have the authority to dictate legislation; nor does he have the authority to decide judicial cases. (And so on and so forth.)

What impeachability, since this is all apparently legal? Impeachment and removal is a political judgment -- as demonstrated recently by the Clinton impeachment trial. It certainly stands as a check on over-reaching by the executive.

So, let me get this straight: You believe that Thomas Jefferson acted illegally in militarily holding prisoners captured in the Barbary Wars and not submitting them to either a criminal conviction in the domestic courts or release?

[Reocourgigiot]

No, it's Commander in Chief powers. The President doesn't have the authority to dictate legislation; nor does he have the authority to decide judicial cases. (And so on and so forth.)



Impeachment and removal is a political judgment -- as demonstrated recently by the Clinton impeachment trial. It certainly stands as a check on over-reaching by the executive.

So, let me get this straight: You believe that Thomas Jefferson acted illegally in militarily holding prisoners captured in the Barbary Wars and not submitting them to either a criminal conviction in the domestic courts or release?

I'm not familiar enough with the situation in the Barbary Wars to be able to say. What I'm saying is that I have extreme reservations about the capture and holding of individuals in sovereign nations within which we have no legitimate military presence, and who have no demonstrable active and immediate threat against the US or its interests, without trial, hearing, counsel, or other reasonable process. It goes against what I believe this country to be founded upon.

[18holesin]

I'm not familiar enough with the situation in the Barbary Wars to be able to say. What I'm saying is that I have extreme reservations about the capture and holding of individuals in sovereign nations within which we have no legitimate military presence, and who have no demonstrable active and immediate threat against the US or its interests, without trial, hearing, counsel, or other reasonable process. It goes against what I believe this country to be founded upon.

Fair enough, but I think you have an overly romanticized vision of the foundation of the country. The Founders wanted their own country and they espoused great principles, yes, but they knew they couldn't be pussy-footing around with enemies. They didn't do the things you believe ought to be required by the Constitution, and no one has since.

Let's not beat a dead horse here. If you're interested I think you should read about the Barbary Wars, and, in particular, make sure you check out the treaty I referred to.