Glad we agree!

Just to be clear, I have no problem going through Afghanistan (and/or neighboring Pakistan) and wiping out Al Qaeda.

But Jeez, if we capture someone, they should have SOME due process thats not completely open-ended.

We bill ourselves as the “Beacon of Freedom” after all.

Until we can develop a reasonable definition of “un-uniformed combatant” then they should be treated as criminals just like they were always treated prior to Bush II. If the Nazi’s treated the Free French like that we would have hanged them for war crimes!…Oh YEAH! We did!!

Do you think that Americans are the only ones with unalienable rights endowed by a Creator? Aren’t we supposed to be better than everyone else?

We all agree on that, Dan. The problem is that when the enemy are not wearing uniforms, and are operating in civilian area, innocent people can be wrongly imprisoned. That is what a habeas hearing is meant to determine.

“Out here, due process is a bullet.”

In a war zone, declared or otherwise, what happens in the zone, stays in the zone. If we are going to have “POWs” then they must be given certain rights and amenities. Then again, you have already stated that they can’t be POWs if they aren’t in uniform and/or aligned with a certain country. If you need to extract information, extract it early. Don’t keep captives UNLESS they are tpo be prosecuted for crimes. Otherwise I see no reason to have a “rainy-day collection”.

“Constitutional rights are enumerated rights and part of a contract between the republic and those who live under its laws.”

Very, very wrong. Amendment IX reads, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Jacob,

If the Bill of Rights is an attempt at listing a subset of natural rights of Man, then don’t you think they should be extended to everyone else just as a matter of course? If we don’t deny them to war criminals or in-country criminals, what justification do we have to deny them to “un-uniformed combatants”?

Nothing says we have to let them vote in our elections, but it’s just unconsionable to lock someone up for six years or more without making the slightest effort to find out if they’re guilty of anything.

I would think having a timely hearing with counsel in front of a disinterested party should be the least anyone is afforded.

Disinterested: “Free of bias, impartial”

That IS a judge. (At least a decent one.)

SHARIAH LAW COURTS IN ENGLAND: THEY FOUND A LOOP HOLE IN ENGLAND’S 1996 ARBITRATION ACT, NOW YOU HAVE SHARIAH COURTS IN ENGLAND

CALL AND SUPPORT THIS BILL THOUGH VA ELECTED OFFICALS. HELP PASS THIS BILL. (BILL HR 6975)

Tom Tancredo proposes an Anti Shariah Measure to protect the USA from the same fate at the UK-This would be the “Jihad Prevention Act”
Posted by allysonrt on September 19th, 2008

Tancredo Proposes Anti-Sharia Measure in Wake of U.K. Certification of Islamic Courts
Friday, 19 September 2008

“Jihad Prevention Act” would deny U.S. visas to advocates of ‘Sharia’ law, expel Islamists already here

WASHINGTON, DC – Amid disturbing revelations that the verdicts of Islamic Sharia courts are now legally binding in civil cases in the United Kingdom, U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-Littleton) moved quickly today to introduce legislation designed to protect the United States from a similar fate.According to recent news reports, a new network of Sharia courts in a half-dozen major cities in the U.K. have been empowered under British law to adjudicate a wide variety of legal cases ranging from divorces and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.“This is a case where truth is truly stranger than fiction,” said Tancredo. “Today the British people are learning a hard lesson about the consequences of massive, unrestricted immigration.”Sharia law, favored by Muslim extremists around the world, often calls for brutal punishment – such as the stoning of women who are accused of adultery or have children out of wedlock, cutting off the hands of petty thieves and lashings for the casual consumption of alcohol. Under Sharia law, a woman is often required to provide numerous witnesses to prove rape allegations against an assailant – a near impossible task.

continue at…http://www.borderfirereport.net/latest/tancredo-proposes-anti-sharia-measure-in-wake-of-u.k.-certification-of-islamic-courts.html
110th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 6975
To require aliens to attest that they will not advocate installing a Sharia law system in the United States as a condition for admission, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

September 18, 2008
Mr. TANCREDO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL
To require aliens to attest that they will not advocate installing a Sharia law system in the United States as a condition for admission, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Jihad Prevention Act’ .

SEC. 2. INELIGIBILITY FOR ADMISSION FOR ALIENS FAILING TO MAKE ATTESTATION.

Section 212(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(G) SHARIA LAW SYSTEM- Any alien who fails to attest, in accordance with procedures specified by the Secretary of Homeland Security, that the alien will not advocate installing a Sharia law system in the United States is inadmissible.’.

SEC. 3. REVOCATION OF VISAS.

Section 221(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1201(i)) is amended by adding at the end the following: `The visa of any alien advocating the installation of a Sharia law system in the United States shall be revoked.’.

SEC. 4. REVOCATION OF NATURALIZATION.

Section 340(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1451(a)) is amended by inserting after the first sentence the following: `Advocating the installation of a Sharia law system in the United States shall constitute a ground for revocation of a person’s naturalization under this subsection.’.