Only this administration could call THIS a victory.

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Tell us where.

Any power not given to the U.S. government by the Constitution is not a power that the U.S. government has. Since the U.S. government is not granted the power to go around assassinating foreigners by the Constitution they have no authority to do so. The 10th Amendment applies to foreign affairs as surely as it does domestic affairs.

You're mired in the old "US doesn't have the right to wage hostilities abroad without declared war" crap.

I'm sorry that you look at the constitutional position as being crap.

 

[Revere]

Were the perpetrators of the Serbian rape camps brought to the US and given civil trials?

 

[Revere]

Any power not given to the U.S. government by the Constitution is not a power that the U.S. government has. Since the U.S. government is not granted the power to go around assassinating foreigners by the Constitution they have no authority to do so. The 10th Amendment applies to foreign affairs as surely as it does domestic affairs.

You're mired in the old "US doesn't have the right to wage hostilities abroad without declared war" crap.

I'm sorry that you look at the constitutional position as being crap.

The Constitution doesn't protect enemy combatants.

 

[Immanuel]

It doesn't deal with it. It only deals with it if you lack the sense to bring them on to US soil and try them here.

If you shoot them in the head in the field, or blow up their mud huts with Predator Drones, those are strictly international law isssues.

Are you saying that you support killing people who may or may not be innocent without a trial as long as they are not American citizens?

If they look at you cross-eyed they are fair game?

This is one of the big issues I had with the Bush Administration. I have always felt that these people deserved some kind of hearing rather than to be killed or locked up for life in Gitmo or some other unknown prison.

Immie

I'm saying enemy combatants not on US soil have no right to civil trial in the United States, for a variety of reasons, first and foremost of which is the extraconstitutionality ineherent in combat capture and interrogation.

You think Al Qaeda operatives should be mirandized?

I think every human being whether or not they are a U.S. Citizen should receive a fair trial and I do not think we should put our men and women who defend us in the position of having to become judge, jury and executioner. They are there to defend the U.S. They have to defend their own lives, but when it comes to the capture of any human being and the lives of our soldiers are in no way threatened by these human beings, then those human beings are entitled to human rights which means that they are entitled to be given a fair hearing as to whether or not they were enemies of the U.S. or just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Immie

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You're mired in the old "US doesn't have the right to wage hostilities abroad without declared war" crap.

I'm sorry that you look at the constitutional position as being crap.

The Constitution doesn't protect enemy combatants.

The Constitution protects people from being declared enemy combatants in the first place.

 

[Revere]

Criminals are going to walk thanks to this bullshit. Is that "the rule of law?"

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Criminals are going to walk thanks to this bullshit. Is that "the rule of law?"

You're beginning to repeat yourself.

 

[Immanuel]

Criminals are going to walk thanks to this bullshit. Is that "the rule of law?"

Actually yes, because our founding fathers felt that it was better for criminals to go free than for innocent people to be imprisoned or executed for crimes that they did not commit and quite frankly, I am thankful they felt that way.

Immie

 

[uscitizen]

I have a cousin that has his doctrate in constitutional law and teaches at a major university.
He and I have discussed this issue of the use of military force on foreign soils without a declared war.

Kevin and I are 100% correct on this per a strict constitutional intrepretation.
You are 100% wrong and I am thru with you on this matter.
Argueing with a rock does neither party any good.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What law says terrorists are entitled to civilian trials?

The Constitution only sets up one system of judiciary for trying criminals. It doesn't establish a separate system for those who commit politically motivated crimes.

Terrorists are not criminals they are armed illegal combatants. They are not "arrested" they are captured by military personal while conducting MILITARY missions. The only ones ENTITLED to a trial in our Federal Courts are those captured by civilian law enforcement inside this Country.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Constitution only sets up one system of judiciary for trying criminals. It doesn't establish a separate system for those who commit politically motivated crimes.

Enemy combatants have been tried in military courts.

Where does the Constitution give authority for the government to declare somebody an enemy combatant, and where does the Constitution spell out any such authority for military courts?

Nowhere, that's where.

So all armed men captured during a time of war by the US must be tried in Criminal Court? The Constitution delegates the Military laws and rules to Congress and the Executive. Or did you miss that part?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Rules are a bit different in a DECLARED war.

It is a declared war. Congress AUTHORIZED the use of FORCE for the WAR on TERROR. Pretty simple concept, even a pea brain can grasp it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

However we are not in a constitutionally declared war.
We have not had one of those since FDR.

YES we are, go read the Congressional AUTHORITY authorizing the use of Military force in the War on Terror.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Enemy combatants have been tried in military courts.

Where does the Constitution give authority for the government to declare somebody an enemy combatant, and where does the Constitution spell out any such authority for military courts?

Nowhere, that's where.

So all armed men captured during a time of war by the US must be tried in Criminal Court? The Constitution delegates the Military laws and rules to Congress and the Executive. Or did you miss that part?

No war has been declared.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Rules are a bit different in a DECLARED war.

It is a declared war. Congress AUTHORIZED the use of FORCE for the WAR on TERROR. Pretty simple concept, even a pea brain can grasp it.

Passing the buck to the President is not a declaration of war.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That's unconstitutional, too.

Really? Every military action abroad is unconstitutional?

Every one since WW2.

You are a FUCKING retard. Congress has the sole right to declare war AND to authorize the use of Military forces outside this Country. Or did you miss the part where Congress creates and approves all expenditures. There is absolutely no requirement that a formal declaration of war be created. Or were all the Indian wars illegal too?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Also, this man's alleged crimes took place in 1998 when there wasn't even a "War on Terror," so the authorizations to use force are irrelevant to the matter at hand.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Really? Every military action abroad is unconstitutional?

Every one since WW2.

You are a FUCKING retard. Congress has the sole right to declare war AND to authorize the use of Military forces outside this Country. Or did you miss the part where Congress creates and approves all expenditures. There is absolutely no requirement that a formal declaration of war be created. Or were all the Indian wars illegal too?

Except in the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 in case you're interested.

As for the indian "wars," yes. Certainly illegal, and also genocide as well.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Morons think that the constituion only is against what they are against.

Wrong, The Constitution grants to Congress the right to declare war and the right to pay for ANY and ALL military actions short of declared war. The war powers act specifically gives Congress the authority to authorize the President to engage in military action with OUT a declaration of war and is completely Constitutional.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Morons think that the constituion only is against what they are against.

Wrong, The Constitution grants to Congress the right to declare war and the right to pay for ANY and ALL military actions short of declared war. The war powers act specifically gives Congress the authority to authorize the President to engage in military action with OUT a declaration of war and is completely Constitutional.

Except the War Powers Act itself is unconstitutional.