Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
All those poor, peaceful, innocent, jihadists..........Just picked up in the wrong place, at the wrong time........poor little darlings
Ask any mindless progressive......
Luckily you're not discussing this with a liberal then, though I'm sure they resent that charge. Especially when your argument, "Most Americans don't want them in the U.S.," is an emotional argument on its face.
Regardless, no, that is not my argument. My argument is that in all cases the U.S. government is constrained by the Constitution. The U.S. government may not, for example, restrict your right to post on this board. Yet they may also not restrict the right of Meathead, who apparently lives in the Czech Republic, to post on this board.
The U.S. certainly owes restitution to those people it captured and detained for years on end who have committed no wrongdoing. Whether it owes some kind of restitution to Yemen is much less clear. You'd have to take into account the attacks on their sovereignty and so on.
I'm not worried about the recidivism rate of people who have done nothing wrong, frankly. You seem to think I'm advocating the release of prisoners who there is evidence of wrongdoing, and that's simply not the case. I would merely advocate that they receive a proper trial to prove their guilt.
You're not a liberal? oooookkkk
No it's not an emotional argument, it's a fact.
You need to learn the law and how it applies to non-citizens, specifically enemy combatants, especially those not within our borders.
As you may have heard, we are a nation of laws. And according to the Constitution, Section 8 it states: "Congress shall have Power........ To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Take a look at the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), the case that involved a U.S. citizen who was an enemy combatant.
The court plainly ruled in that case that U.S. citizens can be held as enemy combatants. The court's four-justice plurality (which included O'Connor, Breyer, Kennedy, and Rehnquist) was unequivocal on this: "There is no bar to this Nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant." And while the U.S. cannot hold an American enemy combatant "indefinitely," it is a "clearly established principle of the law of war" that detention can last as long at the hostilities do.
Nope, not a liberal.
It is a fact that a majority of Americans oppose allowing people who are currently detained in Gitmo into the United States. They oppose it for emotional reasons, however, because they don't care whether these people are actually guilty of anything or not. The fact that they're in Gitmo, justly or unjustly, makes them evil. Which is nonsense.
You still haven't told me where the Constitution gives a legal definition of "enemy combatant."
So now a conservative is going to take up the "Necessary and Proper Clause" to defend the unconstitutional activities he likes. You sure you're not the liberal?
And the Supreme Court is never wrong, are they? How's that Obamacare decision sitting with you?
You're not a liberal? oooookkkk
No it's not an emotional argument, it's a fact.
You need to learn the law and how it applies to non-citizens, specifically enemy combatants, especially those not within our borders.
As you may have heard, we are a nation of laws. And according to the Constitution, Section 8 it states: "Congress shall have Power........ To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Take a look at the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), the case that involved a U.S. citizen who was an enemy combatant.
The court plainly ruled in that case that U.S. citizens can be held as enemy combatants. The court's four-justice plurality (which included O'Connor, Breyer, Kennedy, and Rehnquist) was unequivocal on this: "There is no bar to this Nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant." And while the U.S. cannot hold an American enemy combatant "indefinitely," it is a "clearly established principle of the law of war" that detention can last as long at the hostilities do.
Nope, not a liberal.
It is a fact that a majority of Americans oppose allowing people who are currently detained in Gitmo into the United States. They oppose it for emotional reasons, however, because they don't care whether these people are actually guilty of anything or not. The fact that they're in Gitmo, justly or unjustly, makes them evil. Which is nonsense.
You still haven't told me where the Constitution gives a legal definition of "enemy combatant."
So now a conservative is going to take up the "Necessary and Proper Clause" to defend the unconstitutional activities he likes. You sure you're not the liberal?
And the Supreme Court is never wrong, are they? How's that Obamacare decision sitting with you?
Yes it's nonsense. We just lock up people for shits and grins. Those people are harmless.
The Constitution gives the government power to make laws. Laws have been made pertaining to enemy combatants. I'm pretty sure I linked to both earlier.
