Replies

You're absolutely right that the two cases cannot be squared with each other. This represents a change in the Administration's policy, which has now been confirmed as constitutional by the Court of Appeals decision.

Perfect.

You stipulate my point and move on to argue your case.

Equal protection under the law is now subject to chronological interpretation?

EARLY in the reign of Bush43 he actually BELIEVED we are nation of laws and not men? He thought he was actually REQUIRED "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"?

But after a few months in office he realized precedent applies, to wit:

German citizenship does not exempt an individual from execution by gas because of their Jewish bloodline.

"Load the trains Reichmeister Reno,uh, Ashcroft, whoever!"

I eagerly await your interpretation if/when the Supreme Court overturns the Court of Appeals decision.

Will we then enter the La-La Land of the "Living Constitution"?

Either send Lindh to Gitmo or send Hamdi to prison.

That's my final offer.

Best regards,

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"