[Tennessean4Bush]

Hey, that's great. That's our Constitution hard at work. Keep it up.

We are at war, idiot. Quite a few wars were won to create this America where people like you can continue to miss the point.

If you insist on being a contrarian, at least be an intelligent one. The constitution does not apply to enemy war combatants nor does it apply to non-citizens halfway around the world plotting to kill all my friends and family. Nevertheless, quote the Geneva convention if you want to make intelligent counter-points.

[RummyChick]

Masoor on Fox -connections to pakistan- is saying that ISI has control over this guy and will interrogate him. He will then be turned over to the country of his birth place or some other arab nation. Mansoor says they will use torture.

So just how much control does the US have over the ISI?
Could the ISI torture the dude and not the US ...thus accomplishing the goal but leaving our hands clean. The reason we don't want him in the US is because we don't want our laws to apply.

It looks like this capture was due to someone who coughed him up "under duress".
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/857022/posts

[Viva Le Dissention]

Another question for you folks, using your obviously expanded, yet still undefined question of "war."

So, Timothy McVeigh, OK City bomber. Was he at "war" with the United States? Why did we have a trial for him? Why wasn't he declared an "enemy combatant" and summarily executed or at least tortured in order to find out the identity of John Doe #2?

Heck, it would have been a lot cheaper than our criminal prosecution, and it seems to meet the standards of "war" that ya'll seem to keep bringing up.

Of course, he was a U.S. Citizen, but that doesn't really matter--the Constitution applies to non-citizens, too. But that doesn't matter, either! because in times of "war," we are entitled to ignore the Constitutional protections. But anyway, just curious...