[Jameison]

"I said that I thought SCOTUS was correct in ruling the President of the United States does not have unlimited authority to suspend our rule of law and due process rights,"

Our rule of law has never applied to prisoners of war, captured in the heat of battle.
Next you are going to tell us the Nuremberg trials should have been held in New York under American law too, no?
You are talking nonsense.

[KavMan]

Like others have said this is actually pretty good for the President. Now the RATS will have to vote for or against these tribunals in Congress for these terrorists.

[jamiefoxer]

Sure it does apply. The Geneva Conventions stipulate that we treat our prisoners humanely and that each country that has prisoners need to give the prisoners a chance or FAIR process (not a closed, military tribunal beyond the reach of SCOTUS) to prove they are NOT combatants. If found guilty of extra-state terrorism (Al-Qaeda), they can be tried by the "violated" country (the U.S.) for the crimes they committed and imprisoned here in the USA. If found guilty of participating in a legitimate war against us, they should be accorded POW status and held an appropriate, HUMANE facility on our territory, that is overseen by our Congress and Supreme Court UNTIL the end of our conflicts with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Why is this hard to do?