DSK wrote:


JohnH wrote:


Read it for yourself, Harry.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, *except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time
of war or public danger*[emphasis added];

I agree. The case of the Gitmo prisoners is far from clear cut. However, if they are
'enemy combatants' then they are POWs and have certain rights, or they are citizens of
some country which presumably endows them with some legal rights.

One real problem with this methodology is that it lowers us down to the
level of those we are trying to combat.




The US has simply grabbed them and is holding them, for any or no reason, and apparently
is going to continue to do so as long as somebody in this or any future administration
finds it convenient. That is not showing respect for rule of law.


The Attorney General of the United States has no regard for law or
procedure, and the current POTUS is too stupid to know any better.




In the other cases of the Patriot Act extinguishing constitutional rights, answer me this
John- if a gov't agent can search your home, or confiscate your property, or slam you
into a 'detainment facility' with no prior justification to a judge or grand jury, and
whence you have no recourse.... what friggin' rights do you actually have?

DSK


Well, John can always put on his old uniform.


--
Email sent to is never read.