[Mike4Freedom]

To say otherwise is to deny what our very Constitution says.

So a treaty approved by the president and 2/3 of the Senate can override the constitution that requires 2/3 of the Senate, 2/3 of the House and 3/4 of the state legislatures to amend. I think NOT. The rule has been interpreted as treaties are binding on our internal legal system only to the extent that they do not violate the constitution itself. Due process still applies and Bush is a criminal for imprisoning Padilla without due process.

Are you claiming that due process is ever dispensible?

[Southack]

"Are you claiming that due process is ever dispensible?"

Of course.

Battlefield detainees do not require due process. For instance, even though more than 1,000 U.S. citizens went to Germany to fight for Hitler during WW2, when we captured them on the battlefield we were not required to stop combat to give those U.S. citizens due process (i.e. an attorney, a trial, full rights, etc.).

Ditto for those 8 U.S. "civilians" who the Germans snuck onto U.S. soil during WW2 to conduct sabotage.

In that case, they received a military tribunal inside FBI headquarters.

This is not to argue that these are ideal or even desired conditions, mind you. Rather, I'm merely pointing out that the rules have been this way since WW2. Bush didn't invent them in the last 3 years, and it is a major black eye on all of those who are complaining about these rules today...that they weren't protesting these rules decades ago.

To wait until the last minute to protest is imprudent, and leads to cries of political opportunism.