[DemoSmear]

How exactly is it a COURT MARSHALL, silly in a civilian case- for one that isn't in our armed services? Remember, it is the cilivilian right to due process that the ACLU wants.

So, I take it you're saying a military tribunal is okay with you, so long as he gets his day in court.

That may indeed be the best way to go- after the war is over.

No, Bubba. Forget it- you'll never convince me that our government is out to get me. Take care. Time for a beer.

[HiTech RedNeck]

after the war is over

What, pray tell, marks this point in the present case? And who shall decide it, the executive?

[HiTech RedNeck]

If you want to remain blind to a fundamental corruption of our system of justice by the excuse of a never ending war, go ahead. It is counter to all things American to just "make a person disappear."

[HiTech RedNeck]

Forget it- you'll never convince me that our government is out to get me

Straw man argument. What you need to become aware of is that a blind lion has been let loose. It may not be specifically "out to get you" but if you come across its path beware!

[HiTech RedNeck]

How exactly is it a COURT MARSHALL, silly in a civilian case- for one that isn't in our armed services? Remember, it is the cilivilian right to due process that the ACLU wants.

Well, somebody has got to hear this case, whether it be a military or civilian court. Otherwise the Constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial is a mockery. The SCOTUS could well decide to hear it directly, if nobody else steps up to the plate.

Note: there has been no war declared. So the basic premise of Quirin has not been met.