Project deadlines and I finally called it quits for the night. I may have been a bit 'punchy' :o)


>Fire fights? Military operations? Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will <g>) but I don't believe all the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay were detained under those circumstances. Many of them were arrested for being "suspicious."
>
>You were really burning the midnight oil on our behalf last night. Insomnia?
>
>>That's crazy. You don't bring enemies captured during fire fights back to the U.S. to be tried in a civilian court system - uniform or not. That's actually funny. This is people caught during military fire fights or miltiary operations in a country our military is under combat operations in. These are not civil crimes they are suspected of - if they were, they would be under the jurisdiction of the Iraqi police force and government. Now all every enemy has to do is strip off their uniform and get brought to the U.S. to await trial in a civilian court system. CRAZY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hey, well at least I would not have had a job anymore. No need for military interrogators if they are all brought to be handled by the police force and our internal judicial system.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I gotta go with Tamar on this one (sorry, John). The Constitution does not specify citizens as the sole beneficiaries of due process. Roosevelt pulled off the whole "enemy combatants" designation under an entirely different court under entirely different circumstances. Personally, I'm pretty torn on this issue as to which side was right.
>>>
>>>I guess, now, to avoid the whole legal issue we'll just have to shoot the terrorists on sight and not accept surrenders ;-).
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>A terrible ruling. Since when do non-citizens get the protection of the US Constitution?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Why is this terrible? So now we can have real trials with real evidence? There's a problem with that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Doug
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Non citizens, don't rate the protection of the US Constitution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Really. So when people from other countries come to visit the US, they're not entitled to due process?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Tamar
>>>>>
>>>>>They are not entitled. They are however granted due process if they are here legally.
>>>>
>>>>Wrong. From the US Constitution:
>>>>
>>>>---
>>>>Amendment VI
>>>>
>>>>In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
>>>>---
>>>>
>>>>Note that it says "the accused" and doesn't anywhere indicate that this applies only to citizens or even to legal residents. It doesn't even say "the people," which is widely used and might be interpreted as applying only to citizens.
>>>>
>>>>Everyone is entitled to due process under the Constitution, not just citizens or legal residents.
>>>>
>>>>Tamar