The Senate wouldn’t be able to pass “the nuclear option” in any case. But I still don’t see Congress defunding a military action that is in progress. Talk about “not supporting the troops”.
BG: Scratch that last reply, since I mixed up my AUMFs. The first AUMF is the one we’re talking about, but I doubt that that even a Democratically controled Congress could agree on wording for a new resolution and just scrapping the old one would be suicide for the Dems. Maybe you’d be able to get the Pubs to agree not to filibuster if there was a Democrat in the WH, but in that case the Dems in Congress probably wouldn’t be concerned enough to change it in the first place. And changing the wording in that AUMF isnt worth “the nuclear option” which would have to be redefined from what the Pubs wanted to do for judicial appointees only and applied to all acts of Congress. No way is the Senate going to ditch the filibuster rule entirely. No way.
If they are not POWs they are criminals of the everyday sort, presumably, and should get a trial in a real court, and a speedy one too.
Nothing that has happened in Guantanamo is legal, or should be.
No, for your intellectual inconsistency, as I’ve already pointed out. That’s kinda part o’ what we *do * here, ya know.
Please refer back to what I have already pointed out to you about where and when it is *terribly * important, if our Constitution and laws are to have any importance at all. Do you, in fact, *have * a reply of any substance?
You can get around that with the slogan (which for once actually means something, “Support our troops! Bring them home!”