Fair enough. The person I challenged to put up a cite put up the same one, so I'd been around that barn earlier in the thread. Thought that adding Hamdi, especially Scalia's dissent, clarified the issue in a contemporary setting.
-- If the treason is as bad as Q has stated it is, especially if they can prove there was a real coordinated effort to take down our republic, then I won't rule them out. --
Understood. Yours is a popular view. I think it is misguided, or at best, not well defended in light of case law and long standing principles. The seriousness and magnitude of the charge or conspiracy is not sufficient justification, without more.
Yeah, I saw that reply while still playing catch up with this thread. It doesn't change the fact that it has happened before, granted it was war and post war circumstances but it has happened before. No amount of opinions changes that.
Understood. Yours is a popular view. I think it is misguided, or at best, not well defended in light of case law and long standing principles. The seriousness and magnitude of the charge or conspiracy is not sufficient justification, without more.
Misguided??? If this plot to take down our country is real and this stealth war against the American people is real (which I am having less doubts about to more we learn), military tribunals would definitely be necessary to help restore our Constitutional Republic if true. There is even a good chunk of money allotted for this in the latest Omnibus bill so perhaps it is that bad.
One other thing, if 0bama is found to NOT be a citizen of this country, then a military tribunal would definitely be in play.
CGato