Due Process. What a crock. Sounds so noble. Well did we apply Due Process at Gitmo? No. When due process is applied selectively it becomes a travesty. Just so much talky talky from unthinkers. Right?

Right. I agree with you.

Justice cannot exist unless law and process apply equally to all.

Exactly. So the "due process" folks do not impress me at all because they are inconsistent, selective,  politically partisan and illogical. What's to like about fuzzy thinking and hypocrisy?  Thank you for your reply hartfire!  :)

Hello Rosie:

Gitmo was set up specifically to AVOID due process.  Bush didn't understand the Constitution.

excon

Due process to enemy combatants, really? How many released from Gitmo have returned to the battlefield?

That it is an inconvenient fact blithering idiots will never confront. These combatants not only returned to the battlefield but went on to help kill more Americans.

Hello again, you guys:

Couple things.   I thought America was exceptional BECAUSE of our Constitution..  Contrary to you, I DON'T think it's an impediment to justice..  Secondarily, we do NOT hand out rights based on how bad you are.  As I said above, Bush didn't understand the Constitution..  Neither do you two..

excon

You do not understand the Constitution, it doesn't apply to enemy combatants in times of war. But then again why would I expect a left wing ideologue to grasp common sense.

But of course your outrage is selective as usual. I am sure you would be very happy to place an American citizen on a no fly zone list at the whim of a government bureaucrat because it fits your agenda to take away the second amendment.

Selective outrage and little knowledge of the rule of law, that goes hand in hand with liberalism.

Hello again, p:

Please, SHOW me WHERE it says the Constitution doesn't apply to enemy combatants..

I'll wait.

excon

 So  it is common knowledge that we set up a facility to avoid due process which so many people insist is what we must provide for everyone?  Does that make the hypocrisy easier to swallow excon? Not for me. We use excuses/reasons/justifications whenever something doesn't suit us and we want to go against our own rules and are ever so  full of holier than thou when it does suit us to follow our own laws/rules. I'm not impressed. Thank you for your reply and Happy Sunday m'dear!  :)

:):):) Nice smackdown excon. Very gentlemanly! ((hugs))

:):):) Another hit excon! Keep 'em coming! :)

@excon, show me where in the constitution enemy combatants caught on foreign lands have the same rights as America citizens. I'll wait.

War implicates legal powers and rules that are not available during peacetime. Among other things, the war context gives the President the authority to detain enemy combatants at least until hostilities cease.

Article two of the Constitution will give you further explanation.

Hello again, not:

Sorry..  I was feeding my cat..

"..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.."

The founders COULD have used the word, "citizen", but they didn't.  I don't think that was an oversight..

excon

Hello again, p:

Article two is pretty long..  Can you quote the exact passage that you're referring to?

excon

@excon, is your cat also a PITA? Mine is. Pretty sure that doesn't apply to enemy combatants caught on foreign lands fighting American troops. My understanding is that can enemy combatants can be legally kept at Gitmo until the war is over.

:):):) Guess Hoo excon?

Hello again, not:

Pretty sure???  Pretty sure isn't good enough.  The 5th Amendment is CLEAR. 

Here's the relevant legal thinking...  While we're at war, we CAN hold prisoners of war till the war is over. They're not tried, and they're not guilty of a crime.  When the war is over, they go home..

But, when we declare a NEVER ENDING war, as we have in the War on Terror, that means prisoners of war will NEVER get out.. Bush recognized that fact, and that's why he tried to "try" them.  But that fell apart quickly..  Turns out the Constitution DOES apply in Gitmo no matter HOW badly Bush/Cheney didn't want it to. 

excon

:):):)

The people at GITMO fall under the UCMJ not civil laws.

As they were captured on the battlefield the UCMJ are the laws they are subject to.

@@excon, well we are still at war, declared or not.

Hello again, not:

Yes..  But, that turns the IDEA of POW's being RELEASED on it's head.  And, that's EXACTLY the reason Bush TRIED to try the combatants in court.  But, doing that TRIGGERED all our Constitutional safeguards, and he failed miserably.

Now, we're in a Constitutional Never Land.  They CAN'T be held.  They CAN'T be tried.  And, they CAN'T be released..

excon

Hello again, not:

As an addendum, I DO have an answer for all these problems, and even larger ones..  Yes, it involves going back..

IF Bush had treated the twin towers attack as the CRIMINAL matter it was, there would NO Gitmo, NO war in Afghanistan, NO war in Iraq, NO ISIS, all the criminals would be dead or in prison, and 4,000 American soldiers would be alive.. 

excon

Well, yes and no.

The UCMJ doesn't permit the kind of torture and abuses that went on at Gitmo and else where, or the kind of "extraordinary rendition" (where prisoners were transferred to countries to farm out the torture processes) or dumping "released" prisoners on a street in Albania, or etc.

Which is why, as excon described, we ended up in Constitutional Never-Never Land when both the current and previous War Criminal Administrations went to put "enemy combatants" of an undeclared war on trial.

Of course, they found another way around it. They just have a secret presidential memo and drone the F***ING HADJIS. Sadly, most Americans don't care.