How about this for dealing with "enemy combatants" and the like

[CoolHandCox]

@Nobody

True, and these days, congress giving the president authorization to use military force has come to replace a declaration of war.

You are absolutely correct. I could take it a step further though and say the President has the right to “defend the nation” even without Congressional support. Bush argued this (but never needed it), Obama has said he is acting with congressional support (but never said he couldn’t act without it). It’s something a court would decide (or sidestep) if it comes down to it. History suggests the President can, but these circumstances are different than other past situations.

Right. They don’t have Habeas corpus because even Obama is admitting that there wouldn’t be enough evidence to convict them if they were put on trial.

They do have access to habeas corpus. It’s quite profound, however obvious it seems in this age.

But getting to your point about “evidence” to convict them. I think he means there is evidence that these persons are bad, but the evidence would not be able to be admitted in a proper court (worthy of the name). It’s sticky. How would you decide what do to do? (You knew they were extremely violent terrorists, but you obtained this info in a coersive fashion). Uphold the “law” and let them go free, or protect the country you’ve taken a solemn oath to defend. I don’t know this answer.

You like to ask me questions, so let me ask you a couple. When will the war on terror be over? In fact, can it ever be won?

That’s the million dollar question. Some will say there is not a war on terror, and there never was. Others will say it’s ongoing and exists today. Certainly we face a threat from extremists/terrorists, but is this a “war”? I don’t know, yet. Give me a month and I’ll attempt an intelligent answer. I’m sure it can be won, but fighting may or may not be the answer.

If somebody robs or murder’s a person here in the US and there isn’t enough evidence against them, they get to go free. I’m not saying that I like it necessarily, but I think the same standards should apply to those accused of funding terrorists.

This is essentially the “prosecute and release” mentality. It’s probably close to the right mentality. Except, robbers and murders don’t usually kill 3,000 people in a day and demolish three 70/100+ story buildings in lower Manhattan. That last point alone is what the other side says makes this different than common criminals and makes them “combatants”.

[Nobody]

@CoolHandCox

You are absolutely correct. I could take it a step further though and say the President has the right to “defend the nation” even without Congressional support. Bush argued this (but never needed it), Obama has said he is acting with congressional support (but never said he couldn’t act without it). It’s something a court would decide (or sidestep) if it comes down to it. History suggests the President can, but these circumstances are different than other past situations.

The constitution makes it perfectly clear that for us to go to war, congress needs to declare it. But presidents can get around it if they do things like get involved in a conflict. And if I remember correctly (and my memory has always been crap) a president doesn’t need congressional approval for defensive action, only offensive. But again, I could be misremembering that.

They do have access to habeas corpus. It’s quite profound, however obvious it seems in this age.

But getting to your point about “evidence” to convict them. I think he means there is evidence that these persons are bad, but the evidence would not be able to be admitted in a proper court (worthy of the name). It’s sticky. How would you decide what do to do? (You knew they were extremely violent terrorists, but you obtained this info in a coersive fashion). Uphold the “law” and let them go free, or protect the country you’ve taken a solemn oath to defend. I don’t know this answer.

If the evidence is from coercion then I’d question its trustworthiness. If the evidence contains state secrets, I’ll say what I said in another thread. We need to have a court system with lawyers and judges who have the proper security clearance.

Hey, didn’t Obama say he was going to do something like that? I haven’t heard anything about that in a while. I wonder if it will still happen.

That’s the million dollar question. Some will say there is not a war on terror, and there never was. Others will say it’s ongoing and exists today. Certainly we face a threat from extremists/terrorists, but is this a “war”? I don’t know, yet. Give me a month and I’ll attempt an intelligent answer. I’m sure it can be won, but fighting may or may not be the answer.

I’m usually not too fond of asking people to define their terms, but every once in a while it’s necessary. To you, what does winning the war on terror mean?

This is essentially the “prosecute and release” mentality. It’s probably close to the right mentality. Except, robbers and murders don’t usually kill 3,000 people in a day and demolish three 70/100+ story buildings in lower Manhattan. That last point alone is what the other side says makes this different than common criminals and makes them “combatants”.

These are people who have been accused.

I find it funny that here in America, as the severity of a crime rises, but burden of proof becomes greater. That is, until you’re accused of being a terrorist, or funding terrorist organizations. In those cases, the burden of proof becomes much much lighter.

[CoolHandCox]

@Nobody

If the evidence is from coercion then I’d question its trustworthiness.

If the jury was told how the information was obtained (ie, the person was coerced using X method and then he gave up Y information) then I would be fine with letting in coerced information. The jury could weigh the credibility and decide to believe it or not. I don’t know if this is how it’s done, but I’ll find out.

If the evidence contains state secrets, I’ll say what I said in another thread. We need to have a court system with lawyers and judges who have the proper security clearance.

Judges can perform an “in camera” review. This means the Judge, alone, can look at the information to determine whether it is really confidential or not. The problem is there is usually great deference to the Gov’t saying it is.

I’m usually not too fond of asking people to define their terms, but every once in a while it’s necessary. To you, what does winning the war on terror mean?

This assumes there is a war on terror, but I think it’ll be won when the US re-writes its laws to allow for zero torture and every detained person is heard (or has access to be heard). Again, give me a month and I’ll have a better answer.

These are people who have been accused.

I find it funny that here in America, as the severity of a crime rises, but burden of proof becomes greater. That is, until you’re accused of being a terrorist, or funding terrorist organizations. In those cases, the burden of proof becomes much much lighter.

This just gets to the heart of, are they combatants or criminals. You don’t have to “prove” the person is fighting you in a court while the war is still ongoing. That’s nonsensical. The big questions though are, is this a war, and are these combatants. This is a grey area and Bush, before anything, sent in the lawyers to fill in the vacuum and determine how the game could legally be played.