In 2006 the primarily conservative US Supreme Court ruled that the term 'Enemy Combatant' as defined under the Bush Administration was unconstitutional.
Should Congress go back to the drawing board and create a new legal classification which follows the letter of the USSC decision while still allowing prosecutors to circumvent due process and Miranda rights?Should America change her laws to accommodate terrorists?We should stop sponsoring terror around the world to feed our security-industrial-banking-oil complex.Should America change her laws to accommodate terrorists?I think terrorism is a complete joke, and when the box was opened it's not going to be closed until we're all terrorist. The term terrorist is completely wrong and vague as it gets, and in some form that should go to the supreme court, because I know that is against the constitution to have such a vague word becoming so incriminating. This word doesn't discriminate either... and soon it'll be everybody.
I know many people think that way, but I'll just say it again. I think these all these laws are just excuses to throw large numbers of people in jail for no reason at all. I think the most powerful army in the world shouldn't be worried about just a few people with guns, it's silly, and people will argue they pulled off all these attacks, I disagree and always will.Should America change her laws to accommodate terrorists?Civil due process and miranda rights do not apply to enemy combatants, never have and should not now. The Supreme Court is only %26quot;primarily conservative%26quot; in the view of extreme leftists.Should America change her laws to accommodate terrorists?why do you need to circumvent due process?Should America change her laws to accommodate terrorists?I am confused, neocons believe in spreading liberalism around the world and they believe in social programs like welfare here at home. Are you against welfare and programs like that? Is that why they hate you?
