[Recovering_Democrat]

thanks for the post, JHuang..

Nat, I am fine with what Justice is doing. Did the Supreme Court decision take into consideration the factor of a nation at war? I'm certain it didn't. Perhaps the almighty Supreme Court would have rendered a different opinion. Perhaps not. In any case, I'm sure ol' "Dr. Terror" is still under surveillance, as are a lot of others being released.

In case you hadn't notice, 5,000+ people are DEAD. INNOCENTS. If some possible suspects are inconvenienced because our government is trying to round up murderous bastards, I say TOO BAD...there are millions more of us out here who are willing to suffer those inconveniences, too, for the sake of finding and stopping more acts of atrocity.

[JohnHuang2]

Bravo -- couldn't have said it better myself

[sauropod]

I disagree. I am probably farther to the right than either of you, but i am worried about the permanent loss of civil liberties going on here.

There but for the grace of God go i.

[Twodees]

I'm willing to suffer the inconvenience, if Congress will declare war and even if they suspend the privilege of the writ of habeus corpus. Piecemeal, unconstitutional measures like this shouldn't be tolerated.

For any of the excesses of government to be tolerated under the justification of war, Congress must first declare war. There are Constitutional provisions for just this sort of emergency, and failing to utilize them just makes everything done outside those provisions illegal.

[Bill Rice]

"...there are millions more of us out here who are willing to suffer those inconveniences, too, for the sake of finding and stopping more acts of atrocity."

Time to change that handle Bub. You've recovered all the way!

[walden]

Yeah, I'm ok with this too. We know they're being fed well and not tortured, so I think the most one can say is that they're inconvenienced. Too bad. We are at war, and if the worst thing that happens to anyone in a war is that they get inconvenienced-- well, they can just get over it.