From: "Gary Britt" 

I agree their are additional considerations to think about in the situation
of a US citizen taken into custody on US soil.  I don't see a distinction
for a US citizen taken into custody on the foreign battlefield.

I agree the war on terror could last a very long time and an injustice in
theory could be done.  In such a case I say its also unjust for the poor
USA soldier to get killed by friendly fire, but injustice happens, and
sometimes any cure is worse than the disease.

Cheers,

Gary

"James Adams"  wrote in message
news:3FE7306D.60A8F9AF{at}compuserve.com...
> > In
> > the war on terror, that means enemy combatants can be held indefinitely,
> > solely by determination of the EXECUTIVE branch, until the war on terror
is
> > over and until such time as their release will NOT constitute a threat
to
> > the USA.
>
> I'm not arguing with the role of the Executive to hold enemy
> combatants.  What I do argue with is the Executive being able to
> designate any US citizen it wants as an enemy combatant with out review
> of that decision.  It's especially disturbing in a war on terrorism.
> Who decides when it's over?  It will be like the war on drugs - it will
> just go on and on.  So if the President makes a mistake, hard to believe
> but even St. Reagan did, a person could be held for the rest of their
> life.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5