Anyone notice that both campaigns...

[Bob Gutermuth]

NO, I didn't say that 'we' should ignore it, I disagree with it as I do with Roe v Wade, Miranda v Arizona, Furman v Georgia and others. I might have to live under the decisions SCOTUS makes, I don't have to like or agree with them.

"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice"Sen Barry M Goldwater.

[K.Bullock]

The 4th amendment is the law of the country, not the person. It applies to all government activity in the country. In addition, warrantless surveillance has not been restricted to non-citizens.

The concept of "enemy combatants" is exactly what the Geneva Convention was written to address. I assume you actually meant to say "illegal combatants" which had been the term used by the administration in its efforts to deny convention rights to those detained. The administration has lost every single court test of this theory. The language of the treaty is very clear. Either the detained individuals are combatants,which would make them subject to the Geneva Convention, or they are criminals, which would make them subject to our justice system.

Either way, the administration's activities have been lawless by design. That is, the administration has argued that the activities are above the law because they are being carried out on the orders of the President as Commander in Chief during a time of war. Nothing in our Constitution has ever been interpreted to give the president such broad authority. The whole nature of our government of checks and balances is that no one, including the president, is above the law.

I guess I understand where your coming from. But wouldn't common sense tell us that these guys are not run of the mill street thugs or just simply political dissenters. When they strike they strike big. Should we sit idly by and let it happen?

There are several by the way that have been killed on the field of battle after they were released from prison.

Mohammed Yusif Yaqub
aka
Mullah Shahzada

* Reports of the release, return to the battlefield, and subsequent death in combat of Mullah Shahzada, while reported in the press, is always attributed to unnamed insiders.[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][26][30]
* The official list of Guantanamo captives included a man the same name, Haji Shahzada who remained in custody years after the stories that Mullah Shahzada had been reported to have been released, and killed in combat. Haji Shahzada was one of the 38 captives whose Combatant Status Review Tribunal determined they had not been an enemy combatant in the first place.
* On Monday, May 14, 2007, Pentagon officials, for the first time, tied the reports that "Mullah Shahzada" had returned to the battlefield to the name of one of the captives on the official list of Guantanamo captives, Mohammed Yusif Yaqub.[8] According to Reuters summary of their testimony:

"Released May 8, 2003, he assumed control of Taliban operations in Southern Afghanistan and died fighting U.S. forces on May 7, 2004."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rned_to_battle

Considering that they are being released to fight again, I would say they are getting better treatment than the prisoners they are taking.

I will spare you the video of what happens to al-Qaeda prisoners.

[cotts135]

It is my opinion that the Constitution is meant to give rights to citizens and those legally in the country, ergo I have no problem with extraordinary treatment of those who are neither, or those with whom America is at war.

Hey, you either believe in the rule of law or you don't. What is it? It sounds like you want to suspend the laws for certain classes of people. I hope that is not the case.

[K.Bullock]

Hey, you either believe in the rule of law or you don't. What is it? It sounds like you want to suspend the laws for certain classes of people. I hope that is not the case.

Well yeah ..non U.S. citizens Otherwise Acorn would have been registering voters in the middle east.

...on second thought they probably did.

[Bob Gutermuth]

I believe in the rule of law, however I do not think that constitutional guarantees apply to non citizens and illegal aliens. Is that clear enough? it is my opinion, nothing more.

[Matt McKenzie]

NO, I didn't say that 'we' should ignore it, I disagree with it as I do with Roe v Wade, Miranda v Arizona, Furman v Georgia and others. I might have to live under the decisions SCOTUS makes, I don't have to like or agree with them.

"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice"Sen Barry M Goldwater.

Not only that, but this year, I take issue with Georgia v Alabama and Georgia v Florida. I didn't care for the outcome of either one.

[Hew]

Well yeah ..non U.S. citizens Otherwise Acorn would have been registering voters in the middle east.

...on second thought they probably did.

Exactly...

[RedHeadedHurricane]

Hey, you either believe in the rule of law or you don't. What is it? It sounds like you want to suspend the laws for certain classes of people. I hope that is not the case.

The constitution is for only those that are U.S. citizens or within our country legally.

[Terry Britton]

The constitution is for only those that are U.S. citizens or within our country legally.

Like it or not, that is not how our courts look at the constitution. I think they started looking at it differently when illegal aleins started killing each other rather than going to authorities over various disputes.

Does anyone realize how many illegal aleins fought for us, and sacrificed during WWII?

[Terry Britton]

I believe in the rule of law, however I do not think that constitutional guarantees apply to non citizens and illegal aliens. Is that clear enough? it is my opinion, nothing more.

That is my opinion too, but was straightned out by several lawyers in a debate on another forum.