Treatment of terror suspects as enemy combatants...

I cannot... Say this sternly, forcefully and with every fiber of my being enough.... VEHEMENTLY NO.

By no, I mean NO NO NO, not in a million years!

An American citizen has rights. In this case, we point to the right to due process. American jihadists ALSO.

I don't care of his affiliation. Read the man his rights, give him a trial, find him guilty then do what must be done. If the trial finds him to be an enemy combatant, fine. But no one should stand for this type of judgement, suspension of American rights, BEFORE the facts are in. That is decidedly, anti-American.

 

That system would certainly have kept the lawyers busy and the court rooms full during WWII.

The Nazis would have been very grateful for this due diligence and the indifference to affiliation..

 

That doesn't matter. Without those principles, there's no point to this country or this thing people keep talking about called "freedom."

 

Found guilty? How quaint.

Why do you think we should do any of those three things?

Give him due process and a trial, and if found guilty, hang him.

 

You have the wrong guy. I'm not the one who brought up "sanctioned".

I don't know. Who?

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, it's silly to execute people without due process just because someone in the government said we are in a war on drugs, isn't it?

 

You've made your point very clear on what soldiers overseas are doing for you.

 

I did? What point did I very clearly make on that?

 

It certainly does matter. Those 'principles' which have been fought for over the centuries must be protected against those who would destroy them. Men and women have fought in earlier wars to defend these principles and, once the war was over, were able to pick up where they left off.

You may not understand what freedom is because it's being chipped away all the time, but once you lose what remains you'll certainly notice the difference.

 

That we're not in a war.

It's funny. I'll tell myself that during rotation in January.

"No, those bad guys don't think we're in a war. What they're doing is simply illegal, just like drugs. This isn't a war"

 

Didn't you say "Yeah, that was my point. Semantics. We don't have a sanctioned "war on terror" any more than a sanctioned "war on drugs"?

 

Yes.
..........

- - - Updated - - -

What Americans are you referring to?

 

Where did I mention the word "Americans" in this comment?

Did you mean to respond to someone else?

 

I'm well aware of the slow boiling frog argument. Don't preach to me about freedom. I have the ability to distance myself from perspective. Quite good at objective analysis from my profession. The erosion is clear. I'll spare the details.

But in what world does it make sense to eliminate american's rights by allowing the state to claim their an enemy combatant, and say that system preserves freedom?

 

Typical righties - 'rules of war' for Islamic terrorists, Constitutional protections for extreme right wing terrorists. No one was screaming about this when Dylann Roof shot a bunch of Black folks.

 

No, go back to the OP and your post #8.

The issue is stripping an American citizen of their rights because they are accused of being involved in a terrorist attack.

 

Right. A terror attack, like 9/11, was an act of war. Congress voted to go to war because of a terror attack. We're currently still deployed fighting the enemy, which is terrorists who declared war on the United States.

There lies the problem.

 

What are you babbling about? Who said anything about 9/11? What does that have to do with American citizens and whether they should be denied fundamental constitutional rights?

Congress never voted to go to war.

 

Was 9/11 a terrorist attack?

Was the NY bombing a terrorist attack?

Let's start with these two questions and maybe I can share my point better

 

It is constitutional and Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War.

 

yes and yes.

 

that does not explain why someone should be denied their right of due process and representation. we are not under martial law.

right now you are just being redundant

 

Ok, perfect. Now I'm going to use different terminology and be less vague to make this point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autho..._Force_Against_Terrorists#Congressional_votes

A terrorist attack occurred on US soil. The United States Congress then voted to use military force to pursue and defeat those responsible.

A terrorist attack has just occurred on US soil. Obviously there's no need to send the military to get this one terrorist, and there's no suggestion that he's working with a unit. However, he still committed a terrorist attack on US soil.

Both scenarios involve attacks by enemy combatants. Where they lay their head to rest isn't as pertinent as the terrorist attack.

Can you at least somewhat see my point? If you also refer back to my original comment, I stated that I see both sides of the argument and stated why. I hope others do too.

- - - Updated - - -

Aren't you the guy that said the Benghazi attack was caused by a video?

Run along now

 

I think the use of the word suspects gives us all the answers we need. If we allow the government to treat any American citizen outside the due process of law because he is suspected of a crime the American judicial system starts the long flush down the drain.

 

That's fine. Then don't call this country free.

 

What exactly is the legal definition of enemy combatant? That would seem to be the deciding issue. That and whether or not that designation overrides his rights as an American citizen.