Why I will vote Republican.

John, I agree with your point and would add for others to consider that the 2 most important jobs the President has is the Commander-n-Chief and the appointer of federal judges. Of course the Supremes are the most important, but he appoints all federal judges (with advice and consent of the Senate, of course). Look at the 9th circuit if you want a reason to not vote for Obama. Considering that the congressional Republicans will be wondering in the wilderness for at least another 2 years, McCain is the best choice for an appointer of judges since he has proven he can get things done across party lines. On that other job most of us at this blog have a personal interest in: the thought of Obama as C-n-C depresses me…

Jason...listen to us. These men are FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS. What part of "they don't qualify for having any rights under our constitution beyond what congress deems them to have based on section 8 of article I" do you not get? These are not criminals, sir, they are foreign ENEMIES! Why don't you understand that, indeed, we don't believe our constitutional protections extend to everyone around the globe because they are not Americans, we don't own the entire globe (even if you like to accuse us of wanting it) and giving such enemies such rights constitutes making them legitimate actors and elevating terrorists and terror acts to the status of acceptable warfare. Why don't you get it that that makes the world more dangerous, sir, because we continuelly tell people that they do not have to abide by any rules but we will give them more and more leeway to commit their acts and be accepted as part of legitimate civil society. Screw that!

"What part of "they don't qualify for having any rights under our constitution beyond what congress deems them to have based on section 8 of article I" do you not get?" Hey kat, take it up with the judges. They're the ones who say that you're wrong - in three separate cases. So tell me, what part of "your actions are actively supporting the continued growth of anti-American insurgencies" do you not get? Do you deliberately ignore the Bush administration's policy of exporting democracy from the point of a gun and its blissful "yeah but international laws don't matter to us" attitude? Do I really have to send you the links where Bush is stating how everyone in the world should have the same rights and protections as Americans? Wake up. People who were wisked away from their homes - not from a battlefield - and held for five-six years without charges and without evidence of any wrongdoing - and tortured for information that they don't have - that's what happened in the Soviet Union. That's what happens in African countries. Not supposed to happen in United States. Your kind of attitude paints a big bullseye on every American who travels overseas, not to mention supporting radical extremist propaganda that extends the justification for their fight.

So tell me, what part of "your actions are actively supporting the continued growth of anti-American insurgencies" do you not get?

so tell me, what sort of naivete leads you to believe that, that is the cause of anti-American insurgencies? Seriously, this is totally wrong assessment of "insurgencies" as if they are actually caused by whether someone gets a criminal case heard or is held without habeas corpus. Do you spend all of your time reading the Democrat talking points, or do you actually read any manifestos or other "insurgent" (#$%^! TERRORIST!) captured documents? Do you think that the Pashtun tribals are largely fighting because 270 people still remain in Guantanamo? Or, are imprisoned in Afghani jails? These men fight for the power and position of their tribes. They change sides for their personal benefit. Their allegiance swings with the wind and depends on which feud of the day tops their list of gripes. Most of those who join are commanded by their allegiance to the tribe or a leader. Beyond that, they have unmolested bases, unmolested training camps, and unmolested indoctrination camps in madrassas across Pakistan. They don't need prisons or prisoners to get more recruits.

Do you deliberately ignore the Bush administration's policy of exporting democracy from the point of a gun and its blissful "yeah but international laws don't matter to us" attitude

That does not make those nations or those people American citizens nor subject to our constitution, contrary to continuing claims of imperialism. Neither are there international laws that guarantee the right to our civil courts. In fact, international law would be satisfied with 10 minutes of formality and a gun shot to the head. Internationalists would demand that formal process take longer, but the law does not. You want to keep going with what international law demands?

Wake up. People who were whisked away from their homes - not from a battlefield - and held for five-six years without charges and without evidence of any wrongdoing - and tortured for information that they don't have - that's what happened in the Soviet Union.

name them. Name one person who was whisked from their homes in this country and held for six years and tortured or stop giving yourself the willies with your over hyped BS from some stupid Hollywood movies and McClatchy news articles. You can't do it because those people do not exist. The person held the longest was Padilla at two years, and his chief complaint wasn't torture, but isolation that he claimed was torture. He certainly was not whisked away from his home and kept in prison for 6 years. Now, try someone else. Name a United States citizen who has been hidden away in the gulag archipelago of the United States and tortured for six years? Otherwise, my point stands: foreign enemy combatants who did not comply with the Geneva Convention and who, by our signatory, are afforded the bare rights of any person and whose torture you cannot confirm, but try to make up out of half-a$$ statements about being slapped or pushed or kept in confinement or made to listen to loud music, etc, etc, etc, are not required to be seen or heard in our civilian courts. Further, military tribunals, the tribunal system that has for over two centuries in this nation, been the process for dealing with prisoners during war time, is all that is necessary by even your vaunted international laws. The most it says about habeas corpus is to make sure prisoners have a tribunal to establish their status within the conventions and that they should be repatriated at the conclusion of the war. There is that part about prisoner exchanges, but since the enemy usually kills all of their prisoners, that's out of the question. If you had to go with what international law says. And the constitution simply instructs congress to make all laws or rules of capture at land and sea. It never tells them they have to give any rights or other process of addressing their capture to any other body of this nation. They are outside of the law.

People like Jason don't understand the differences between: 1) Rights of US Citizens, provided for by the US Constitution. 2) Rights of POWs and enemy combatants, provided for by the Geneva Conventions. 3) Basic human rights, provided for by the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They are not the same, nor should they be. Each are entered into by different social contracts.

It seems pretty bloody simple to me. The U.S. Constitution protects American Citizens and to a lesser extent Foreign Citizens on American soil. Jason, what part of not a U.S. Citizen, not on U.S. soil do you not understand? The legislative body is the Constitutionally authorized body to determine how Foreign Citizen's captured and detained on foreign soil are to be treated. The S.C. usurping the legislature's Constitutional authority and duty is the very definition of Judicial Activism.

[laces up the Big Boots of Argghhh!]

Snerk. Yer just making my point for me.