Many people are upset with the Thursday, June 12, 2008, decision that would allow for first time in American history (and 500 years of Common Law history) the right to a writ of habeas corpus for our enemy while in the midst of a war…

You can make a case for those distinctions, as the dissent did. You can also make a case against them, as the majority did.

If you look back at my original post and lobo’s response to it, you’ll see that my only goal was simply to refute the erroneous distinction between “citizen” and “non-citizen”. The Constitution clearly covers a great many non-citizens, so one should take the time to sort through various categories of non-citizens rather than making blanket statements.

Besides, non-uniformed combatants in a war zone are subject to execution in the field, according the the Geneva Convention. Any mercy extended to them afterwards should not be subject to the courts.

I guess the answer is to just not take any prisoners.

Given our relatively long history of civil and military law – why are so many people fuzzy on “Habeas corpus” in context of military law, yet same people are so crystal clear on military law and “Posse Comitatus”?

In the same vein; why was the importance of ’stare decisis’ and precedent, given such widespread coverage and so thoroughly discussed on the net and MSM during the SC nomination process for both Roberts and Alito, and yet noticeably absent concerning this latest decision?

Do you actually expect me to answer such vague questions? What is it you really want to know?

Do you have any clear evidence of ‘original’ intent to extend habeas corpus to this country’s enemies? Any cases of it being done in the past?

Your choice of the word “enemies” was mistake. We have granted full due process to the Rosenbergs, Timothy McVeigh, Jose Padilla, and many more, I’m sure.

Then refute it with facts. Any reasonably intelligent person is capable of understanding “We the people of the United States” and “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”.

Look at the context of those words. They comprise the preamble and state who is creating document (and by extension, the nation) and why they are doing so. Those particular words shed no light on who exactly the document applies to.

Intent can be deciphered by examining the words that are included and omitted. If we scan further down, we see a section on the qualifications for officeholders. It distinguishes between citizens and non-citizens. If your interpretation was correct, making such a distinction would have been superfluous. Yet we must assume that every written word was chosen for a reason unless there is very clear reason to do otherwise. If we don’t lend great weight to each chosen word, you give the courts far more ability to legislate from the bench than you are currently accusing them of.

Are these “persons” you are referring to, serving on our juries, voting in our elections, paying our taxes?

Some, but not all. Regardless, the Constitution is merely a framework and does not get into the such details; they were left for Congress to decide.

I’m not absolutely sure of where you are coming from, so to get a better understanding; I have a few questions that may, dependent on the answer, clear it up.

Given our relatively long history of civil and military law – why are so many people fuzzy on “Habeas corpus” in context of military law, yet same people are so crystal clear on military law and “Posse Comitatus”?

In the same vein; why was the importance of ’stare decisis’ and precedent, given such widespread coverage and so thoroughly discussed on the net and MSM during the SC nomination process for both Roberts and Alito, and yet noticeably absent concerning this latest decision?

Do you have any clear evidence of ‘original’ intent to extend habeas corpus to this country’s enemies? Any cases of it being done in the past?

That is absolutely and unequivocally false.

Then refute it with facts. Any reasonably intelligent person is capable of understanding “We the people of the United States” and “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”.

The Constitution repeatedly refers to “persons.”

Are these “persons” you are referring to, serving on our juries, voting in our elections, paying our taxes?