Judge stikes down key part of Patriot Act

[Universe Prince]

In other wars they were granted prisoner of war status.

No, they were not.  POW status, as outlined in the Geneva convention as I recall, regards such a prisoner as one uniformed, representative of a particular government...THUS the term enemy combants and NOT POW's in this case.

Uh, yeah, like I said, in previous wars they were prisoners of war, and in the current conflict they are not. Hence the conclusion that they are not being treated just as has been done in every other war.

Because you're the one implying how our Constitution apparently reaches out globally.  That's why.  Something about how your questioning me in citing that the American Constitution is speciific to Americans.  Ball in your court

I said not a single word about the U.S. Constitution having a global reach. I said the U.S. Constitution applies to the U.S. government. Ball in your court.

Which again prompts the query, where in the Constitution does it apply to all other citizens of any other country.

Let's clear this up right now. I have no intention of supporting a claim about the U.S. Constitution applying to "all other citizens of any other country" because I have not made and do not intend to ever make that claim. Neither do I expect to play Devil's Advocate with such a claim. So in summation, I have zero reason to answer your question and therefore have zero intention of doing so. Let's move on.

You appear to be referencing that because our U.S. constitution doesn't specifically state only U.S. citizens, then that means it must apply to everyone.  Can't be assumed in any way the logic of the U.S. Constitution being specific to U.S. citizens.  Naaaa, it's a "living document", free to be reinterpreted on the fly, as we see fit.

No, that is not what I said. Not even close. Sigh. Okay, what I said was that the U.S. Constitution applies to the U.S. government. Not to everyone, not to all people everywhere, but to the U.S. government. And I am not reinterpreting the U.S. Constitution. I am using the plain and clear language of the document itself. As BT might say, I am taking it as meaning what it says and saying what it means. The language of the document certainly seems clear enough on this point. It defines and restricts the powers of the U.S. government. It therefore applies to the U.S. government. And the conclusion I make is that since the people who wrote Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, used that language, they therefore intended the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, to be a document that applies to the U.S. government. This is not rocket science. This is basic reading comprehension.

And you can NOT protect the "Rights of the People" withOUT protecting this country.

Okay, I'm going to repeat myself yet again, because clearly you didn't quite get it the first time or the second time. The primary (please note that I did not say "only") function of the federal government is to protect the rights of the people. If it was to protect the country, a military government would have been established, not a democratic republic with specific limits on the government (a.k.a. the Bill of Rights). And I did not say there was no reason to have a national defense. What I said was that the primary (please note that I did not say "only") function of government is to protect the rights of the people. Having a national defense does indeed help accomplish that, but having a national defense is not, nor should it be, the primary function.

According to you, other wars were apparently unecessary, since the Fed needed to focus their attention on "protecting the rights of the people" rather than protecting the country.

No, that is not what I said. If you can't even get what I said correct, when it's there right in front of you for you to read as you type your reply, why should I think you understand the original intent of the U.S. Constitution?

[sirs]

Actually, I got it both the 1st & 2nd times, but apparently you haven't yet accepted the concept that your theories falls flat with,
a) the notion we're in an old fashion war with old fashion labels that must be adhered to
b) the notion that the Government's primary roll is simply to "protect people's rights"
and in repeat response;
A) We have a new type of enemy on a global battle field, that require new tactics in order to deal with them.  They still are enemy combatants taken off the battlefield indefinately, just as prisoners in previous wars were.  But since they are not representative of any government, follow any form of uniformed military code, and follow zip adherence to any Geneva Convention statutes, by definition doesn't give them POW status, per the Geneva Convention
B) People's rights in this country can NOT be protected without protecting the country 1st.  Rights under our Constitution mean squat if we're being occupied by another nation.  It doesn't get any simpler than than, no mttaer how much you try

[Universe Prince]

Actually, I got it both the 1st & 2nd times,

You say that, and then you proceed to prove that statement wrong.

but apparently you haven't yet accepted the concept that your theories falls flat with,
a) the notion we're in an old fashion war with old fashion labels that must be adhered to

Please feel free to point out where I said anything like that. I'm pretty sure I did not.

b) the notion that the Government's primary roll is simply to "protect people's rights"

You say that falls flat, but so far, you haven't said anything to indicate that it is not so.

and in repeat response;
A) We have a new type of enemy on a global battle field, that require new tactics in order to deal with them.

I don't recall anyone saying otherwise in this thread. Did you? I know I didn't. So the question then is, to whom are you responding. Can't be me.

They still are enemy combatants taken off the battlefield indefinately, just as prisoners in previous wars were.  But since they are not representative of any government, follow any form of uniformed military code, and follow zip adherence to any Geneva Convention statutes, by definition doesn't give them POW status, per the Geneva Convention

Again, not something anyone contradicted in this thread. The point, as I recall, is that precisely because they don't have prisoner of war status, the enemy combatants are not being treated "just as has been done in every other war". No one is arguing that they should be prisoners of war. Only that because they are not, they are not being treated as prisoners of war. And frankly, I cannot figure out why you would dispute this. The truly puzzling part though is that you keep constructing your reply around something that we agree on, that they are not prisoners of war. It's almost as if you're saying I'm wrong because you agree with me. I feel like I've stumbled into a argument constructed for fun by Terry Gilliam.

B) People's rights in this country can NOT be protected without protecting the country 1st.  Rights under our Constitution mean squat if we're being occupied by another nation.  It doesn't get any simpler than than, no mttaer how much you try

No one is saying that the country should not be protected. (Hm. There seems to be a theme here.) And as I said, at least twice already, having a national defense does indeed help accomplish the protection of the rights of the people. But being defended from attack is worthless if we lose our liberty in the name of security. What you're missing is that we can actually both protect our rights and protect the nation. You're also missing that the best and most legitimate reason to protect the nation is to protect the rights of the people who live here. Protecting the nation should serve the protection of the rights of the people. Thus leaving protection of the rights of the people as the primary function of the government.

All in all, I have to conclude, you, in fact, did not get it the first, second, third and possibly fourth time. And I'm not holding out hope that this time will be any different. You're responding to someone passionately it seems, but not to me. Because you've made counter arguments almost entirely to things I haven't said.

I've patiently repeated my comments several times now, adding emphasis and explanations each time to help you understand. But this conversation has reached a dead end, quite obviously. Buh-bye.

[Amianthus]

Uh, yeah, like I said, in previous wars they were prisoners of war, and in the current conflict they are not. Hence the conclusion that they are not being treated just as has been done in every other war.

In previous wars, combatants that were not wearing the proper uniform (or were not wearing a uniform at all) were arrested and held as spies, not prisoners of war. Spying during wartime carries a death penalty.

[sirs]

No one is saying that the country should not be protected. (Hm. There seems to be a theme here.) And as I said, at least twice already, having a national defense does indeed help accomplish the protection of the rights of the people. But being defended from attack is worthless if we lose our liberty in the name of security. What you're missing is that we can actually both protect our rights and protect the nation

A point that I could swear I never disagreed with.  In fact I emphasized such by demonstrating that without protecting the nation, protecting one's rights becomes meaningless if we're all being ruled by another nation    oy   Somehow you're under the continued false assumption I'm choosing 1 over the other.  How wrong you could be   

[Mr_Perceptive]

Uh, yeah, like I said, in previous wars they were prisoners of war, and in the current conflict they are not. Hence the conclusion that they are not being treated just as has been done in every other war.

In previous wars, combatants that were not wearing the proper uniform (or were not wearing a uniform at all) were arrested and held as spies, not prisoners of war. Spying during wartime carries a death penalty.

This is correct. I have interdicted several in my career and treated them little better than dogs. Men in another country's uniform are worthy adversaries as they are just doing what they are told. Spies are useful, but, personally, I think a man stands toe to toe with his afversary, as much as possible anyway in this 21st century of warfare. Slinking around is not my style and I do not respect it.

[Universe Prince]

In previous wars, combatants that were not wearing the proper uniform (or were not wearing a uniform at all) were arrested and held as spies, not prisoners of war. Spying during wartime carries a death penalty.

True enough. But even arrested spies would get some sort of trial, if I recall correctly.