Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: 1rudeboy
Your legal analysis is incomplete without considering this US Supreme Court case, Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942)(finding that an unlawful belligerent need not be afforded Constituional protections despite being a US citizen).

If the Supreme Court ruled you have no right of speech, religion, or no right to own a firearm would that make it legal? Read what the Constitution says about due process and decide for yourself if this is constitutional. Personally I don't need a half dozen men in black tell me what the meaning of plain English is. Unlike Bubba I know what the meaning of is IS.

256 posted on 06/16/2002 10:52:08 AM PDT by sandmanbr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies ]


To: sandmanbr
You are jumping the gun. Unlawful Combatants are spys, sabatours & assorted bad guys.

In that case the Supreme Court traced the history of the Rules of War to show that is how they were treated since the revolutionary war.

The news accounts stated that he was doing "reconnasence" this time. That is another word for Spying.

The Court also said that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Law enforcement is not set up to deal with these guys. The Rules of War are. The Rules of War were passed by Congress back in the 1800's. Have also been modified a few times according to the case cited.

Durring the Civil War a lot of Southern Spies and such were hung.

It is not a new thing.

316 posted on 06/16/2002 1:42:05 PM PDT by Dan(9698)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson