TexasCHLforum.com

I didn't see anyone calling for no trial. He would get a civil trial even as an Enemy Combatant, and that declaration does not strip him of due process, at least according to the SCOTUS (8-1).

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court recognized the power of the government to detain enemy combatants, including U.S. citizens, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the rights of due process, and the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial authority.

suthdj wrote:He is no different then McVeigh, just because he belongs to Islam does not make him an enemy combatant no more then Adam Lanza who killed more.

Well, we all have our own opinions, and I made no mention of Islam. Adam Lanza is dead, and even if alive, there is not a shred of evidence that his heinous crime was connected to international terrorism that I have seen. McVeigh, I believe, was charged long before the law allowing for interrogation, and designation of Enemy Combatant, of a U.S. citizen. There is, in this case, evidence through internet postings, recent international travel, previous FBI questioning at the request of a foreign government, etc. of the "possibility" of foreign influence and support for this crime. As I agreed, it's a tough call, but each case must be looked at on it's own merits. Personally I believe we are at war with international terrorists and any of their home grown participants. Without outstanding intelligence, wars are lost. Again MHO.

texanjoker wrote:It is a tough call, but he is a US citizen. At what point do we say you do or do not receive the Bill of Rights? They made the decision for criminal court so that is out.

I believe that the U.S. Congress, and signed by a President, made the decision that a U.S. citizen can be designated an Ememy Combatant. But, you're right, it is a tough call. But in this case I lean towards that designation. As I said, MHO.

What the MSM is commingling is "Enemy Combatant" and "Military Tribunal." They are separate and distinct from each other. The suspect may be declared an Enemy Combatant, even though a U.S. citizen, interrogated til the cows come home with no Miranda rights, and then tried in civilian court. The suspect can challenge the designation of Enemy Combatant and a federal judge would have to decide. Also, while intelligence gathered during such interrogation may be very useful, the information gathered pertaining to "the crime" cannot be used in civil court. That said, there is enough to convict this guy already, so additional information gathered in the interrogation would probably not be needed anyway. We, once again, miss the opportunity to gather intelligence that might directly affect national security, by immediately Mirandizing the suspect because a civil trial is upcoming, and we want the world to "admire" our justice system so our enemies will hate us less. That's the way I understand it, and MHO. Of course, I am not a lawyer