When one attacks another country that is not at war -- that is an incursion. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq was at war with the United States and did not in any way attack the United States. The United States attacked these two sovereign nations which is an incursion, not a war.

Just because insurgents fight to fend off an incursion does not make that incursion a war.

The people originally accused of attacking the United States were Saudia Arabians and Saudi Arabia is our ally which does not make a war.

None of the people taken by the United States are legally prisoners of war and all are being held illegally and need to be released or charged and given trials.

War is the only exception. If terrorism is war, we have been in war since Cain slew Able.

While I AGREE with today's majority opinion that "all enemy combatants detained during a war, at least insofar as they are confined in an area away from the battlefield, [but] over which the United States exercises 'absolute and indefinite' control, may seek a writ of habeas corpus in federal court," I also AGREE with Chief Justice Roberts (and his fellow dissenters) that the Writ can be suspended in time of war, such as the war on terror that we find ourselves involved in right now, and that suspension power belongs to Congress, such as Congress has exercised in this case, "as the Constitution surely allows Congress to [wield]."

I guess one can REASONABLY conclude that the Court's Majority knew where they wanted to end up, and proceeded to get there, however s-l-o-w-l-y they weaved their way through precedential minefield!

OsiSpeaks.com

Mother Jones - Comments for "Q&amp;A: Gitmo Lawyer Shayana Kadidal on SCOTUS Ruling"

Mother Jones - Comments for "Q&A: Gitmo Lawyer Shayana Kadidal on SCOTUS Ruling"