That is incorrect. Not to mention, no one has proved that he is a member of Al Qaeda. If otherwise, you or I can be called that also and denied our rights without due process. It would be a call for the government with no recourse. No trial, no attorney, no charges. Just, "I say he's the enemy so he is".
Oh certainly but not until he is squeezed for intel, however long that takes.
You can't have it both ways. But you can sure try. If he has no rights, then there need be no trial. If he gets a trial on treason, he is entitled to his rights as a citizen.
No, it is perfectly correct and telling me I'm incorrect after telling me you didn't know does nothing to give me confidence in your latest declaration.
Not to mention, no one has proved that he is a member of Al Qaeda.
The CIC is satisfied that he is a member of Al Qaeda. Congress authorised the CIC to conduct this war. The judiciary does not have the power to execute wars, that power is granted to the executive. Under your system the judicary could order the CIC not to bomb Tikrit absent a court order and a document to show cause.
If otherwise, you or I can be called that also and denied our rights without due process. It would be a call for the government with no recourse. No trial, no attorney, no charges. Just, "I say he's the enemy so he is".
Everything you state here is without factual basis. Only Hamdi and Padilla are being held as enemy combatants, the other 280 million of us are still going about our business. Padilla is getting his judical review, after all we are debating here the opinion of the Second Circuit. He has an attorney, I just saw her on TV. And as for the charges they will be forthcoming, good things come to those who wait.