I think he’s a typical terrorist.

A liar.

I sure hope they follow his movements after he serves his paltry 5 months.

How does one “merit it”?

Uhh, let’s see… by not being a terrorist or violating the Geneva Convention by fighting as a partisan?

I misunderstood your pronoun. I thought you meant he didn’t merit a meaningful legal proceeding.

Giving Hamdan, who could have been summarily executed on the battlefield, any rights at all makes as much sense as prosecuting someone for slapping a death-row inmate as he get strapped into the chair.

There are times in a man’s life when he has an extreme amount of control over another man’s life.
- A jury that sentences a man to death.
- A soldier in a tense situation may have authority to either shoot or capture.
- A person may witness a stranger choking.
- A homeowner may shoot an intruder if he has reason to believe his life is in danger.

In each case, the first person has momentary control over the second person’s fate. In no case, does voluntary lenience grant the first person perpetual control over the second person.

As for your sophistry to Christoper Hamilton regarding Civil Liberties

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. It is not sophistry to define the scope of a conversation. I cited a reputable definition of a phrase that was in dispute. My use of the phrase was accurate. The discussion is about the degree to which the people in question have civil liberties.

terrorists now have more rights than other federal prisoners because they can apply for habeas corpus in any court instead of only one.

I don’t think I’d trade my rights for theirs. I think my rights to a speedy trial, to have a jury of my peers, to face my accusers, to challenge evidence presented against me, to reasonable bail…. Nah, I just can’t see myself trading those for a couple extra cracks at habeas.

Uhh, let’s see… by not being a terrorist or violating the Geneva Convention by fighting as a partisan?

Giving Hamdan, who could have been summarily executed on the battlefield, any rights at all makes as much sense as prosecuting someone for slapping a death-row inmate as he get strapped into the chair.

As for your sophistry to Christoper Hamilton regarding Civil Liberties, terrorists now have more rights than other federal prisoners because they can apply for habeas corpus in any court instead of only one. That’s thanks to the decision your precious little world-law-loving Ginsburg and betrayer-Souter handed down.

This is complete moral and legal insanity.

This isn’t a matter of civil liberties though.

Civil Liberties: noun. freedom from arbitrary governmental interference (as with the right of free speech) specifically by denial of governmental power and in the United States especially as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights —usually used in plural

That sure sounds like what we’re talking about. You and I seem to disagree on which, if any, liberties suspected combatants should have, but “civil liberties” is definitely the correct word to use.

Christopher Hamilton

At what point do liberals finally face reality and quit relying on sophistry?

You should ask one. I’m a libertarian, so it’s just a coincidence that I tend to agree with liberals on matters of civil liberties.

If we spent a few minutes talking about economics, you would find that we have a lot of common ground.