Your arguments are well reasoned however the issue to me is a matter of misuse of power not the use of power. We have a president that acts without any consultation with congress, we have the most corrupt department of justice in history. The blurring of executive authority between a declared war and an undeclared war is a land full of danger. Hypothetically with a well balanced government that respects the constitution and the sovereign citizenry I have no problem fighting the enemy, no holds barred. However, I fear that is a hypothetical that no longer exist in this once great land.
The founding fathers put restraints on government because they knew government was composed of men. How is it now we are so much smarter than they. Has man changed.... I think not
I am reminded of the great quote... “he who would sacrifice a little of his liberty for a little security deserves neither.....”
Nonetheless, how does it help the situation the least little bit for the citizens and non-citizens alike to be badly misinformed about and incited to wrongfully deny the true history of the Constitution's authorization to suspend the writ of habeus corpus?
How does it help to wrongly condition the public into thinking a prisoner of war must be put on trial in a criminal court where doing so is a blatant and inhumane violation of the laws of armed conflict and a war crime?
How does inciting the disallowal of indefinite detention and mandatory trial in a criminal court for a prisoner of war, whether or not a lawful combatant, do anything helpful to protect our own prisoners of war in the custody of the enemy, especially when doing so is itself a war crime with regard to lwaful combatants?
How does inciting the disallowal of indefinite detention and the beginning of mandatory trial in a criminal court for a U.S. Citizen help to protect that U.S. Citizen against false prosecution, unfair, and unjust trial conducted by a rogue government better than immunity from trial pending the end of domestic hostilities?
We all know the suspension of the writ of habeus corpus is a potentially dangerous power for any government to possess. However, it must not be forgotten nor disregarded that there are also great dangers and risks involved when you mandate that a government must either allow the freedom of an enemy dedicated to causing death and destruction or deny the immunity from criminal trial of a loyal U.S. Citizen attempting to protect and defend their self and/or the Constitution against the usurpation and abuse of power by a rogue Federal Government.
Eliminating the power and the obligation for the indefinite detention of a U.S. Citizen could backfire and give a usurper the power to say a detained U.S. Citizen has no immunity from trial in a criminal court because of the U.S. Citizen's status as a domestic belligerent in a rebellion.
Given these kinds of realities and risks, the question remains as to how well meaning citizens propose to effect the protection and defense of their own civil liberties and protections without inadvertently destroying them at the same time with the consequences of their efforts?
The Founding Fathers were intimately acquainted with these dilemmas, with so many of them and members of their families having been imprisoned and dying in the rebellion of the Revolutionary War. They incorporated their hard won lessons into the Constitution, authorizing a suspension of the writ of habeus corpus and indefinite detention as understood by the then prevailing laws of armed conflict. The current generation faces the problem of determining whether or not they can do any better or any worse. If any changes are to be made, they must be made with the full knowledge and understanding what the potential consequences of their actions may be.
The latest discussions in the conservative blogs do little to inspire any confidence in the commenters’ willingness to make themselves informed and understanding of the consequences of the actions they propose or demand, much less their smearing of the reputations of conservatives who are at least trying to make well informed and understood decisions.
Later on when there is time, I would call to your attention the erroneous usage of the term “undeclared wars” with respect to armed conflicts which were in fact declared wars and armed conflicts which were an imposed state of war for which the Constitution required no action on the part of Congress to declare war. I would argue that you are the victim of the false indoctrination of the general public with regard to the subject of what does and does not constitute a war and a requirement for a declaration of war versus simply declaring war. The reality of the laws of war are very different from the false concepts and false definitions being implanted into a person's mind, beliefs, and conclusions.
Later on when there is time, I would call to your attention the erroneous usage of the term “undeclared wars” with respect to armed conflicts which were in fact declared wars and armed conflicts which were an imposed state of war for which the Constitution required no action on the part of Congress to declare war. I would argue that you are the victim of the false indoctrination of the general public with regard to the subject of what does and does not constitute a war and a requirement for a declaration of war versus simply declaring war. The reality of the laws of war are very different from the false concepts and false definitions being implanted into a person's mind, beliefs, and conclusions.