[BufordP]

Could you cite at what time in modern history where any nation-state accorded POWs, detainees, etc. the rights of their respective constitutions? You keep talking about constitutional rights (Miranda, trial by jury, innocent until proven guilty, due process) forgetting that has never come into play (for incredibly obvious reasons) with regard to enemy combatants.

Now you suggest we begin to treat enemies of the state as citizen criminals rather than alien combatants ala the Clintoon miserably failed methodology.

What does "shoot to kill on the battlefield" have to do with constitutional rights? Explain to me how an enemy soldier is, by virtue of NOT having his head blown off on the battle field, all of a sudden entitled all of the rights of a nation he is fighting to destroy?

There's a big difference between treating a prisoner humanely and giving them "rights" under our constitution. That's the whole purpose of the Geneva Convention. No nation, until now, has been foolish enough to grant constitutional rights to their enemy.

[maica]

Excellent comment.
It is hard to argue with the idealism of a nineteen year old, who appears susceptible to the influence of the worldwide anti-America-defending-herself media. You have stated perfectly all the reasons for NOT granting RIGHTS under our Constitution to those who want to destroy us.