WAIT HE HAS RIGHTS AS AN AMERICAN FOLLOW UP (READ)

[SA Friday]

That's a good read from Orin Kerr. I'm sure someone will be along soon to explain why he's wrong, the Republic is doomed, the Constitution has been trampled and shredded, the jack-booted thugs will soon be knocking at your door, etc...

Or why it makes all the sense in the world from their immense catalog of investigation and terrorism experience as to why someone's citizenship should be overlooked during investigation and prosecution...

[Bailey Guns]

Or why it makes all the sense in the world from their immense catalog of investigation and terrorism experience as to why someone's citizenship should be overlooked during investigation and prosecution...

I have never argued his citizenship should be "overlooked". I stated he could be held as an enemy combatant despite his status as a naturalized citizen and backed that up with federal court decisions. Others said designating him as an enemy combatant would deprive him of habeus corpus. I also provided a Supreme Court decision that stated that wasn't true.

Everyone seems to want to clamor on about Constitutional issues but only when it suits their agenda or viewpoints. But few seem to want to take the Constitution as a whole...especially when doing so would conflict with their pet agenda or viewpoint.

Here's the bottom line from my perspective: Times do change. The guidance of the Constitution should remain constant unless changed by the process found within it. With changing times come changing laws. The Supreme Court is charged by the Constitution with hearing and deciding issues of the law brought before it. In regards to this particular argument, they have. The Supreme Court has upheld US citizens being held as enemy combatants. They've also held that doesn't preclude them from their rights to habeas corpus. That seems to have the heads of the ideologically dogmatic among us spinning.

You, and others, might not like those facts for whatever reason. I get that and understand you're entitled to your opinions. But you're not entitled to manufacturing your own facts...which you tried to do by claiming US citizens could not be held as enemy combatants.

The US Constitution is as near to a perfect document as was ever crafted. Unfortunately, people are not. People make mistakes, people have agendas and opinions, and sometimes those people get elected and/or appointed to positions of power within various branches of our government and their agendas and opinions go with them. Thus, on occasion, their agendas or viewpoints often clash with our own...specifically with regards to Supreme Court justices and their decisions. I respect the court and it's authority and recognize their decisions are not always in line with my beliefs and opinions. But I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

So our system of government isn't perfect (nor or those elected and appointed to government positions) and more and more it seems, in my opinion anyway, the federal government is far exceeding it's Constitutional limits and has it's nose in many places it doesn't belong. As a result, just as our Forefathers warned, with bigger government comes loss of liberties. But that doesn't change the fact that we're a nation of laws whether we agree with those laws or not. There's a system in place, perhaps an imperfect one, that's allows for citizens to change the laws and to remove those in government with which we disagree. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work out the way we want it to.