Treatment of terror suspects as enemy combatants...

That's a great question. That's exactly why I said in post # 8 of this thread.

 

First there was no formal declaration of war. And second I doubt Congress could declare war against something as vague as " terrorism"

 

Keep reading. You're late to the party

 

well that has nothing to do with this issue, yet i provided plenty of links where the man responsible said the video was partly responsible.

rwers just refuse to accept facts

 

LOL!

OMG he still believes it! After Hillary Clinton herself apologized for being wrong about that!

OMG! Left wing, come on!

Send someone else. It's getting too pathetic.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh yea!

Your links were from 2014 BEFORE the INR hearings!!!!

 

You think people that have aligned themselves with a foreign enemy intent on our destruction should be free to do whatever they want? Bizarro World.

 

An authorization to use force against those responsible for 9/11 is a little different than a suspension of constitutional rights of an American.

I agree that someone who blows up people is different than someone who sells drugs, though in fact many more people have died from drug abuse than terrorist attacks.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly what did he say that indicates that he thinks people that have aligned themselves with a foreign enemy intent on our destruction should be free to do whatever they want?

Bizarro logic.

 

Don't put words in my mouth. I don't like that.

IF those perceived people are American citizens, they have the right to due process. Period.

If found guilty, treat them as a combatant and enemy of the state. Do with them what they want.

Did you read?... Gosh

 

I'm not aware of anything in the Constitution that says you can eliminate constitutional rights of an American citizen because someone slaps a label on him. Maybe one of Bush's lawyers made that argument.

 

I'm really confused here. What's this cat going to tell him as an enemy combatant that he won't tell in the normal procedure?

 

I'm just playing devil's advocate for both sides. If we consider a terrorist attack to be an act of war, are we deciding how big a deal it is before the military gets involved (body count)? When does it cross the line from US criminal to enemy combatant?

That's why I posted comment # 8. I can understand both sides of the argument.

 

The enemy combatant was a weak moment in American politics. Congress couldn't man up and do what need to be done, so they wrote some bull (*)(*)(*)(*) law to put the blame in the presidents hands. And totally screwed up the power system in government.

I don't know how an individual can declare an act of war. The very concept of war requires an enemy. You cant go to war with an ideology it has to be a group of people. During the revolutionary war Britain would not have simply agreed someone was a rebel sympathizer with out evidence, or action. The enemy is Isis? We need to declare war on ISIS to make this work. If he's an agent of ISIS guess he's a prisoner of war. I'd feel a lot more comfortable about it then.

 

Those are good points

 

Hang him high I say in "due time" which is really no longer than 3 months.

 

Based on the evidence reported in the news, it shouldn't take long for a prosecutor to put a case together against him.

But I'm not going to put a time frame on it. So you're saying that if the prosecutor waits three months to bring a case we should hang him without a trial?

 

Recall how after Benghazi the President and Secretary of State said, once they stopped blaming Youtube, that they would capture and punish those responsible?

That never happened and, like the Red Line in Syria, the Reset button with Russia, only sends messages of weakness and thus makes terrorism more likely. In fact we can see the growth of terrorism in the US homeland since Obama became President.

 

IMO. Lone wolf attacks, should be treated as criminal. Let the FBI handle it.

If is a group that has as its goal, the over throw of our government or to generally terrorize the populace, (i.e. The Weather Underground Organization (WUO), Alpha 66 and Omega 7, Aryan Nation, Black Liberation Army, Ku Klux Klan, May 19th Communist Organization) then I have no problem stripping them of their citizenship. If its an organization, with stated goals and a network of leadership, to me it is as if they joined a militia and have taken up arms against the United States. And that would make them an enemy combatant. And I'd be fine with drone strikes on their leadership.

A lone wolf, with no organized interaction, to me is the same as Tim McVey. A terrorist, yes, combatant no.

 

Its a total mess. Obamas foreign policy, even if I concede stemmed from bush's war in Iraq, is an absolute disaster. We can't act these people are hiding behind the governments that harbor them. America didn't need a reset button with Russia, we were pretty friendly under Bush. Now Russia feels like Clinton did her typical, smile in your face and stab you in the back thing. We shouldn't be making these claims about red lines. We shouldn't be threating anyone really, at least not the way we do and who we direct it to. the US doesn't have the power to act, because we haven't declared war. Even if we did, the world would be against that kind of action. And they know it.

 

This is exactly what President Lincoln faced. Europe protested Lincoln's naval blockade that prevented neutral merchant ships from entering southern ports of the CSA. So England and France asked Lincoln if he was fighting a civil war or was there a rebellion taking place in America ?

If it's a civil war then Lincoln was violating international laws with his naval blockade of the South and was an international war criminal. If it's a civil war then soldiers on both sides fall under the protection of the laws of war and Vattel's "Law of Nations" for example how POW's would be treated.

But if it's a rebellion then Lincoln's naval blockade was legal and all civilians and soldiers in the rebelling southern states fall under the protections of the Constitution.

If you look at newspapers that were published in the North from 1961 - 1865 it was called the Great Rebellion. Southern newspapers called it the American Civil War.

So was it a civil war or just a rebellion ?

 

No, I'm saying that cut and dried cases against such people who are found guilty, should be hanged within several months. Of course such cases don't need to linger for more than 6 months.

Look back in US history with how long it took to both try and execute the presidential assassins or their conspirators (Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley). I think all were tried and hanged within 9 months.

On the flip side, look at the famous assassins or attempted assassins of the last 50 years: RFK, MLK, Malcolm X, Gerald Ford, and Reagan.

How many have been executed? Zero.

How many have been are or are being released? Three.

 

Now that there are US Troops back in Iraq with actual 'boots on the ground' there has to be leadership which can oversee this action.

We know Hillary to be incompetent and more likely to listen to Sydney Blumenthal for political advice during a crisis rather than her generals, but Trump is more likely to listen to these advisors. Trump is accustomed to making big decisions whereas Hillary, as she has demonstrated so often, is an empty pantsuit.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/more-ground-troops-to-iraq-1474586777?mod=djemMER

 

Why do we need to take such a step as one poster already stated what are we gaining that normal criminal justice system can not give us?

- - - Updated - - -

 

The 'normal criminal justice system' is not designed for war and the US, and all the democracies in fact, are at war.