From: Robert Comer 

Part of the problem here is that the "War on Terror", isn't a war
like previous ones, the enemy is not so easy to determine, so it's far too
easy to just label someone an enemy.  There is no Germans, or Japanese to
target (though what we did to the Japanese American's is pretty shameful),
the enemy is just an ideal that anyway can be accused of, so there *has* to
be more controls on just who is labeled an enemy.

--
Bob Comer



On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:12:17 -0400, Gary Britt
 wrote:

>So you are saying that german prisoners of war in WWII were entitled to a
>trial before a federal judge and proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they
>violated some applicable USA criminal statute??    You are saying that if
>they were apprehended on the battlefield or as spies in the USA by the
>military without proper search warrants they must be set free???
>
>Are you sure that's what you are saying??  You are either saying that or you
>are acknowledging that there are TWO applicable systems one for CRIME and
>one for WAR.  Each with different rules and standards for people apprehended
>and detained.  You can't have it both ways, so is it one system or two
systems?
>
>Gary
>
>Geo. wrote:
>> My point is the law should apply evenly to everyone before you can walk
>> on their rights. If it doesn't then it will come round to bite you.
>>
>> Geo.
>>
>> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
>> news:466ff2b0$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> So what's your point?  There are no circumstances under which a
>>> citizen or other person can be deprived of their life, liberty, or
>>> pursuit of happiness?  If not making that point then is your point
>>> that the USA constitution extends USA constitutional protections to
>>> all persons anywhere and everywhere in the world under all
>>> circumstances??  If you are trying to make some other point please
>>> explain because I don't get the relevance of your post to the
discussion.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> Geo. wrote:
>>>> "Gary Britt" 
wrote in message
>>>> news:466dc043$2{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>> You state this incorrectly.  This person was a legal
resident of the
>>>>> USA who has basically same constitutional rights as a citizen.
>>>>
>>>> Odd, I don't see the word "citizen" in the following:
>>>>
>>>> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
>>>> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
>>>> unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
>>>> pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are
>>>> instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of
>>>> the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes
>>>> destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or
>>>> to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
foundation
>>>> on such principles and organizing its powers in such form,
as to them
>>>> shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
>>>>
>>>> Geo.
>>

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