U.S. Is Allowed to Hold Citizen as Combatant

New York Times ^ | 1/08/03 | NEIL A. LEWIS

[Congressman Billybob]

The Supreme Court will not overturn the Court of Appeals decision. The lower court's decision is entirely in line with the Supreme Court's World War II decision in the Quirin case.

Your attempt to equate these cases with the mass murder of the Jews by Nazi Germany is both offensive and idiotic. The Law of War applies to "enemy combatants" only. Enemy combatants are not protected by the Constitution of the United States, or by the constitutions of any other nation. So said the US Supreme Court, sixty years ago.

They are protected only by the various Geneva Conventions (which we are following) and the Hague Conventions before them. This has abolutely NOTHING to do with "equal protection under the laws" in the US Constitution. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the concept of "a living Constitution."

In my judgment, Bush should have dealt with John Walker Lindh exactly the same as President Roosevelt dealt with Bruno Haupt during WW II. The law has not changed one whit. President Bush could have done that, as he is doing with Hamdi. Please read the Quirin case, a unanimous (8-0) decision of the Supreme Court. Then you will have a clue as to the state of the law, and the fact that the US Constitution does not govern these cases. You are under a gross misconception to think that it does.

Congressman Billybob

Click for latest column on UPI, "Three Anti-Endorsements" (Now up on UPI wire, and FR.)

As the politician formerly known as Al Gore has said, Buy my book, "to Restore Trust in America"

[mrsmith]

"Can you be declared an "enemy combatant" if you are in possession of a small amount of prohibited drugs? "

Do you see that in the authorization?

"How about possession of prohibited ammunition? "

Do you see that in the authorization?

"The penalty at airports for any number of trivial offenses could become the foundation "

Do you see that in the authorization?

Of course not, and neither would a judge.
Which you would know, besides by using your own good sense, by reading the ruling.

[Copernicus]

Your attempt to equate these cases with the mass murder of the Jews by Nazi Germany is both offensive and idiotic

As you will, governments do what governments do.

We live in the Era of the Clinton Legacy after the ruling leadership in their collective wisdom wilfully refused to convict a sitting President of High Crimes and Misdeameanors.

Now we see the Judiciary join a game of pass the buck in two nearly identical cases with diametrically opposed results.

I am to believe the Bellilesian Argument that result B is more correct than result A because of a precedent set by the Dean of all American Socialists -FDR.

This court attempts to exorcise demons by first conjuring them and then acknowledging them, for example with a passing reference to Jose Padilla.

Another curious phrase which should alarm any American who has even briefly catalogued the growing usurpations of our Leviathan government would be this one:

because the conflict in which Hamdi was captured is waged less against nation-states than against scattered and unpatriated forces. We have emphasized that the " unconventional aspects of the present struggle do not make its stakes any less grave.

I will try to look on the positive side of this decision: Geraldo Rivera is known to be armed in combat zones where scattered and unpatriated forces engage in conflict.

Maybe he will be seized and detained as an enemy combatant and thus we will all be released from his incessant inane commentary.

Best regards,