Dear Friends,

I guess the reader would like us to just let go the terrorist and maybe fined them, instead of holding them.

Well, I have personal experience that would tell me otherwise, I worked security in High School at the fair.

I noticed that it I catched and release the people trying to get in, not only did they try it, they would get more to try it.

If you catch somebody and walk them to the gate, even though nobody was watching the area, less people would try to get in, as you had a negative incentive to do such actions.

If we let these people out of jail, every single potential terrorist is going to think, hey, it not so bad, they hold you for a couple years and let you go.

I say no, we have these people and we hold them forever if it take this, and to bad. You want to kill woman and children, you want to support killing woman and children, you are going to jail for life, and to bad for you.

Our Constitution does not apply to these people, and they are unlawful combatants according to the UN, they have no rights.

And if you want to say the Constitution does apply, and it does not, then read what the Vth says.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless he or she is on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

Even the 5th does not give them protection under the Constitution, as they are in a Milita and public is in danger.

Please understand you do not win a war by being weak to evil.

God Bless You

While God is busy blessing me perhaps he could listen in on my phone conversations and peek into our bedroom at night. Imagine the infinite, infallible gadgets that Guy has. There is no better spy than God!

1. That clause applies to persons serving in the US armed forces, not other countries. It basically means that military personnel are subject to penalties based on military codes of conduct, not civilian.

2. The UN does not actually recognize the status of "enemy combatant." They are either prisoners of war, in which case the Geneva Conventions apply, or they are criminals subject to the criminal laws of the jurisdiction in which they committed the crimes. In the case of US residents captured on US soil, the Constitution does, in fact, apply to them. The people who bombed the WTC the first time were tried in civilian courts, and that worked out just fine.

As usual, defenders of Bush's actions in this case miss the point.

First, you can't defend his actions on a constitutional basis, because the document is simply to vague on the subject. Because the administration realized they would have to change the law to allow what they were doing to be legal, they passed the military commissions act in 2006. This allows the president, to determine who is or is not an enemy combatant.

The president can therefore point to anyone, US citizen or not, on US soil or not, and declare them an enemy combatant. The term, which is not the same legal term as "terrorist" or "POW" or "criminal" (because those terms carry legal protections) is itself a sentance, because it removes the right of habeas corpus, along with any right of repatriation.

If this happens to bad people and terrorists, sure, no problem. But thats not the point. The point is that our constitution was created so as to never allow the president to have such power. Most people don't realize it, but the Bill of rights was rendered obsolete (in cases where the president chooses) in 2006. That legal principle is unnacceptable, and represents one of the greatest victories for terrorists and enemies of freedom over this country.

I don't care about giving terrorists trials. I care about ensuring that there is no loophole for allowing presidents uncontested power. There currently exists one, in the form of the military commissions act. Thats it.

So the president can pardon anyone he wants and he can also arrest anyone he wants as an "enemy combatant" with no evidence required.

Furthermore, once he has you arrested he can torture you all he wants, indefinitely.

So much for checks and balances.

There are no longer 3 branches of government. Instead we have 3 tiers of society: the president and his friends, a bunch of nobodies that the president doesn't care about, and so-called "enemy combatants."

Mark_RSM:

I guess the reader would like us to just let go the terrorist and maybe fined them, instead of holding them.

I guess the writer would like to be locked up forever without trial if he's accused of being a terrorist.

Hey, guys! Mark_RSM is a terrorist!

See you in Guantanamo.

Dear Bsharporflat,

He does, and if you are worried about what he sees I would suggest you stop it.

God Bless You

Dear Olethros,

If the Constitution applies to people not US Persons, then the V must also apply. We can not say that the statement about people only applies except for the part in the V. about severing in a Miltia.

The point is the do not get Habeas Corpus, if the Constitution applies to them and if it does not.

US residents that have joined a Miltia that is opposed to the US government do not get it Habeas Corpus, on two grounds, first they lose their citizenship and the Vth applies to them also, as they are in a Miltia, they do not get Habeas Corpus.

If you do not meet the requirements of An unlawful combatant is someone who commits belligerent acts but does not qualify for POW status under GCIII Articles 4 and 5. then you do not get the protects given POWs.

I agree the constitution applies to people that are US residents on US soil but they get no protection under amendment V if they have joined a miltia.

No Habeas Corpus for them, we can hold them forever and nothing they can do about it, and it is all legal and right.

God Bless You

Dear jwschmid,

Please read the V, it has exceptions to habeas corpus, and it is when you are in a miltia, and if you are in a war or public danger.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It was placed in their on purpuse, if you are taking up arms then you lose your rights to habeas corpus.

The president has the power to make this determination, and once made you are hosed. The president can be removed from power buy the Congress but nothing the court can do about it.

God Bless You

Dear Daunsull,

If anybody joins a miltia that is placing women and children at risk, I say they should go to jail for as long as the president feels their is a danger.

Does not matter what I feel though, as the V states it well.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

God Bless You

Dear S34738,

If the president wants to he can have somebody do anything he wants and then pardon them, no check our balance on that.

This the reason for the 2th amendment, the people are the check and balance.

In the Constitution we did not have an army funded for more than two years for this reason.

But no worries, our court has taken all the power for themselves, as they seem to think they can tell congress and the president what to do, to bad they can not.

God Bless You

Before you post on Jurisprudence, you should read more than one opinion about our history, the law and the origins of the constitution. The reason we have courts is because the founders themselves did not agree on what they wrote. I am sorry to blow your mind but that is the truth. Like it or not, the courts are our only guardian against the power of the executive and legislative branches. When the courts end up giving that power away, we suffer.

Learn more about the law and come back.

The fifth ammendment is referring to our own forces. Thats why we court martial soldiers, under different legal rules than civilians.

But yes, we do treat foreigners we fight differently. They are called prisoners of war. The agreement that we have entered which describes how they must be treated is the Geneva conventions, and despite myths to the contrary, they absolutely apply to non-uniformed irregular forces, like those in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You will notice that Enemy Combatants are never referred to as POW's. THis is because they do not have the rights afforded to POW's under the conventions. "Enemy Combatant" was a term with little historical usage that was reactivated to act as a loophole out of both the constitution and the Geneva conventions.

We don't give POW's a right to trial. But we do give them the right to be repatriated, and not to be tortured. We don't have to release criminals or domestic terrorist who we are obliged to give a trial. Those were our legal options until 2006. Instead of obeying the laws of either the constitution or the Geneva conventions, the military commissions act was passed, changing the law in a way that is patently unconstitutional.

Dear Woolley,

You are correct that Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamliton did not agree at all.

But Jefferson, Adams and Paine, were basically in agreement, even though Adams was a federalist, he never like Hamliton.

The court is unelected and has no real power, the president can ignore them or pardon anybody that is convicted by a jury.

The power to write the law rest with Congress, and Congress can impeach anybody on the court at any time.

Congress can also expand the number of people on the court as has been threaten a number of times to force the court to do its bidding.

I know a lot about the law, and a friend of mine just finished law school recently,and we have fun discussion the finer points of it, he was Magna Cum Laude, and most likely aced the bar exam.

He agrees with me that case law is totally crap, and the only reason we have it, is congress does not want to be the bad guy, as they stand for election.

The court is very weak, and the other two branches force them to do their dirty work for them.

The court does not protect anybody, they are part of the party now, look at the election, 5-4 voted to stop the counting, and why, because they were republican appointees.

The reason our system is so un-civil is the power of court, as this power is absolute and not accountable to the people.

So the power to appoint a justices is the greatest power in the land, it is a power that can last for 40 years, and if the congress and president refuse to interceed, has no equal.

But no worries, I am sure some day very soon, we will understand this, when a decision is made like Dred Scott, that does not do what we want, and we say, how did this happen.

If we have one more member Repubican president a lot of decisions will change, and this will cause our legal system to go thru fits, and this is not good, only thing worst than bad laws are ones constantly changing.

God Bless You

Dear Jwshmidt,

Not according to the UN, do you have some other legal document that I am not aware of?

Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) That of carrying arms openly; (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews [of civil ships and aircraft], who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country...

...

Article 5

...

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

They are not members of the Arm Forces of this country, and they are not in their country of birth, so they get no protections.

If person is in his country and he attacks you, he gets protections, but if he is in another country he has to be part of an army/navy to get this protection.

Once you take up arms against the United States as part of a Miltia you lose your rights to habaes corpus.

Either way you lose, we meet all the requirements of international law and our constitution law.

God Bless You