On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 20:35:36 -0800, you wrote: > > I think you're overreacting a bit. The actual case involves someone > who was in a foriegn country for years, and was in the war zone at the > time he was fighting the US. > > The ruling says that he was "squarely in teh war zone" and discusses > the issue that he hda been out of the US for a long time.
Where in the Constitution do we learn that "being in a foreign country for years" separates a United States Citizen from the rights provided by the Constitution? Exactly what period of years triggers this denial of Constitutional rights? Please provide a map of the boundaries of the "war zone" for Mr. Bush's "War on Terror". If the President may deny habeas corpus in the absence of a declared war, and if the geography of a war zone is fluid and undefined by the government, and if the time period of absence from the US and relationship to time of "capture" is undefined, please show how denial of habeas corpus cannot be applied to every US Citizen who has ever been abroad, upon declaration of "enemy combatant" status by the United States Military, solely, under this ruling. Last, if well established bedrock rights written into the highest law of the land like habeas corpus are denied by a government, please describe the moral authority underwhich that government may claim a right to be obeyed. Describing the power to capture, torture, imprison and kill, and the willingness to do so is not considered a "moral authority" in this question. I guess Citizens should "wait on events, while dangers gather"? Citizens should forgo any "preemption of those who would attack freedom"?
