[lepton]

The issue at stake is whether the President can indefinitely hold "enemy combatants" without due process,

"Profoundly clueless" strikes again.

"Due process" in this circumstance is: Did anyone witness someone who is not us doing something militaryish and capture them. It's always been so, and the Geneva Conventions do not even begin to contradict that.

[MNJohnnie]

The issue at stake is whether the President can indefinitely hold "enemy combatants" without due

Man are you ignorant. Military Tribunals ARE due process as the Supreme Court ruled when FDR used them during WW2.