>>>>Under current circumstances when fighting a religion and an enemy that wears no uniform and has no borders and no rules, I'll let the US military make the call in order to do their job.
>>>
>>>In other words, "suspend the rules."
>>>
>>>And you expect the Supreme Court to take this approach to constitutional law.
>>>
>>>Scalia is your man. His legal argument is "Americans will die" if we don't interpret the Constitution and 200 years of case law his way.
>>>
>>>Peter
>>
>>I believe Americans will die if we do not fight terrorism with all our resources and if we continue to play legalistic or academic games about the rules.
>>
>>The constitution was written in a different era when some people still had moral fiber and the rest didn't have global reach, or the means to commit mass devastation on our territory, and had the guts to fight in uniform (mostly).
>>
>>Get the terrorists to play by your rules. Then we'll talk.
>>
>>Until then, keep working on tying our governments hands so they can't provide protection (their duty) and continue to blame bush for everything bad over the last 30 years. See how well that plays when Obama is in office.
>
>I'm curious. How does requiring that an accused person be allowed to offer a defense tie the government's hands? If that's true, then shouldn't this be applied to all criminal trials? Accuse somebody, throw him in jail, throw away the key. Innocence or guilt don't matter.

So during WWII, we should really have stopped and read each enemy soldier his rights, placed them in a nice air conditioned jail, given them a phone call and public defender, had an ititial hearing, set bail, built up a case from investigations in enemy territory, scheduled and held a trial, had endless appeals, spent huge $$ before shooting them or dropping a bomb on them or torpedoing them or ..?

No problem. That may have made things go faster.