1) Just because someone is fighting with the the Taliban or Al Queda, does not mean they are terrorists or illegal combatants. The Geneva Convention, as currently amended, provides that insurgents are legal combatants if they have a chain of command and carry arms openly. By this standard most of the people we capture in Afghanistan would probably be legal combatants.

2) Legal combatants can be held for the duration of the conflict – so not matter what, we can hold these people until we win or they die.

3) If we want to bring charges for war crimes or terrorist acts, than clearly these people are entitled to due process. I would prefer that this be in the form of a court martial – but now I gather that it will take place in the civilian courts.

4) As one TV judge pointed out, the whole problem could be avoided by not taking illegal combatants prisoner. For example during WWI both side simply shot troops caught with illegal sawtooth bayonets.

5) Finally, why should we give these people the very thing they want: Death at our hands. I say if they are convicted let them sit in prison until the die.

It’s an near impossible task to convince a liberal who bases their entire philosophy on emotion. Facts just bounce off like a bullet proof shield. Persuasiveness is irrelevant.

It sounds like you have already decided that your only purpose in writing is to engage in self-congratulatory discussion with those that already agree with you. Have fun with that.

non-citizens can be and are tried as criminals when the circumstance merits.

I agree with the example, albeit irrelevant, you gave concerning illegal aliens committing additional crimes. But I would hope we know that is not what the context of what we are discussing here. Unlawful. Enemy. Combatants. Have no legal rights to our court system. Not even lawful enemy combatants do, according to judicial precedent. In wartime, proof of guilt is not a prerequisite for detention. If you are captured with the enemy, you are guilty by association and it’s a show of kindness that you are not executed.

Similarly, I read yours and found it unconvincing.

It’s an near impossible task to convince a liberal who bases their entire philosophy on emotion. Facts just bounce off like a bullet proof shield. Persuasiveness is irrelevant.

You couldn’t logically analyze anything involved with this case because you didn’t read it.

One need not know everything to evaluate a piece of persuasive writing. If you are to persuade someone, all of your supporting information should be included in your writing.

In fact, you took the same exact approach. I’m willing to bet that you didn’t read all of the briefs and you’re probably not a constitutional lawyer. Thus, you are significantly less informed than the justices that formed the majority. Yet you read their argument and found that it unconvincing. Similarly, I read yours and found it unconvincing.

I would only need to offer additional evidence, which would obviously require a more complete knowledge of the situation, if I wanted to write a complete counterargument. Instead, I’m just saying that your argument, founded on your disagreement regarding the importance of a technicality and your fears about possible consequences, was not persuasive.

“Criminals are CITIZENS who break the law ….”

Criminals are not necessarily citizens, and non-citizens can be and are tried as criminals when the circumstance merits. Illegal aliens committing additional crimes (beyond being an illegal alien) such as murder are not absolved of it by the fact of not being a citizen.

I could logically analyze your critique of the majority instead.

You couldn’t logically analyze anything involved with this case because you didn’t read it. Thus you are disqualified from both anything logically (by default) and emotional because that’s inaccurate anyway.

The technicality over who owns Gitmo was made the majority in this case. My point was that in order to avoid seeing terrorists cycle from the battlefield, Gitmo, courts, back to the battlefield, the military will be more motivated to kill them before they send them to Gitmo now.

Then you are disqualified from making emotional reactions to my arguments since I did read both sides of the decision.

I always disqualify myself from making emotional reactions. Luckily, I could logically analyze your critique of the majority instead. I found your critique unconvincing because it relied on a healthy dose of fear and a meaningless technicality about who officially owns Gitmo.

I haven’t read the entire ruling yet, but seeing as how I’m inclined to agree with them and they wrote a pretty thorough opinion, I’ll rest comfortably on their arguments for the time being.

Then you are disqualified from making emotional reactions to my arguments since I did read both sides of the decision. Again, mere emotion, especially when it’s based on a faulty opinion (the majority in this case) is even more unfounded than the opinion itself.

I’ve shown why the majority was wrong. I don’t need to read more of their same wrong talking points.