Here's my question, Feel free to respond:
"Do terrorists captured on a foreign battlefield have US Constitutional rights?"
Careful. If you answer no, then you must concede that Holder's decision to try them in US courts is a completely illegal travesty and has no basis in law or precedent.
If you answer yes, then that begs another question: Exactly where would those rights come from? Hmmm? C'mon, I know you can come up with something. Please cite the appropriate articles of the Constitution you base your answer on. Please cite precedent as well. What's the matter Libs? Cat got your tongue?
Let me make it easy for you. Both Obama and Holder know there is absolutely no legal or historical basis for trying these terrorists in civilian criminal courts. They know that -- but they simply do not care. As astonishing as it may seem, it's nothing more than another feeble attempt to poke a finger in the eye of a man who hasn't been President for almost a year. How petty, foolish and disgusting this is. I cannot think of any single decision by any US President (yes, it's Obama's decision, not Holder's) that is more utterly unconstitutional, harmful to our standing in the world, and destructive to the role of our armed forces than this one.
But then again, you have a chance to prove me wrong, my misguided liberal friends. I await your answer.
Posted by Robert Bryan from Rightward Leaning