A federal judge has ruled that enemy combatants captured in the war on terrorism can challenge their status in U.S. courts. Judge Joyce Hens Green ruled that imprisoning foreign fighters without hearing "negate[s] the existence of the most basic and fundamental [rights] for which the people of this country have fought and died for well over 200 years." But can you cite anything like this happening in World War II? Or, for that matter, do you recall any nation in the history of warfare that opened up its court system to prisoners of war? Judge Green is simply inventing history. Despite the insistence of liberals that we arrest bin Laden and open our courts to the complaints of foreign combatants, the "war on terrorism" is not a police action. It is, as the first word in the descriptive phrase indicates, a war.

This is the basis of what I’ve been railing about for the last few days: the U.S. is getting soft!!! Political Correctness is endangering our security and our ability to defend ourselves adequately!

The most fundamental error in all of this is that these “detainees” are un-uniformed, illegal combatants who are not even considered for protection as soldiers by the Geneva Convention. Never mind our court systems.

And, no, I can’t imagine this foolishness being even remotely entertained in any other time and place. In fact, if these mo’s were operating the same ways they are now during WWII, they would either be shot on the spot or, after a speedy trial, hung.

Indefinite detentions have a significant history in this country and yes I can cite examples from World War II, World War I, and the War Between the States.

During the "Civil War", Abraham Lincoln revoked the writ of habeaus corpus on his executive whim (and later ignored Justice Taney's ruling that his action was unconstitutional), jailed thousands of anti-war dissidents, suppressed free speech, and even deported a Congressional political opponent. For more on this I suggest taking a look at Thomas DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln".

During World War I, the Wilson administration used the Espionage Act to jail anti-war protesters while censoring the mail at the same time - the publications of opponents of the Great War were banned. And during World War II, FDR's administration interned thousands of German, Italian, and Japanese-Americans while the Justice Department waged a war on the Bill of Rights. (See Thomas Fleming's "The New Dealers War")

The question I have is why should we want to return to this state of affairs?

Some may claim that the policy of indefinite detention will only be applied to terrorists and American citizens will not be subject to such treatment, but the history of government demonstrates that when the state is granted the power of arbitrary arrest it frequently abuses it.

No, I cannot cite a nation in this history of warfare that has opened its courts to prisoners of war. However, as many have pointed out, the so-called "war on terror" could last for lifetimes (my view is perpetually as it is currently defined). Whereas in the old days, there was at least some sort of definitive end to war, what we are left with is the reality of the US government being able to claim someone is a terrorist, hold them indefinitely -- for a lifetime even -- with no legal recourse for said individual.

That, my friends, is a recipe for tyranny, not security.

Cases in point: Lincoln won the Civil War; Wilson won (or very much helped to win) WWI. FDR incorporated similar internal security tactics during WWII and we won.

It seems to be that only since WWII, have we as nation and society been so concerned about individual rights, that we will sacrifice our security to maintain those rights. No matter who they apply to.

We are much less secure now than we were then and certainly less deliberate when faced with making the tough decisions necessary to maintain our safety.

And, the only tyranny I see is in my tax bills.

Reid the congressman, being a critic of Thomas
briefs, would applaud this. Judge? Green probably
has a Ph.D. in cafeteria management! Is she elected or appointed, by the way? Liberal semantical problems have plaqued our courts for
years, but entered through elected judges and some
appointed by liberals. Treating terrorists as if they were upstanding citizens entitled to the basic rights of Americans is a gross miscarriage of the spirit as well as the letter of the law.
Where is the precedent for such an opinion? Such
practice ignores the very foundations of language,
not to mention fairness. Since God gave us the
ability to speak, read and write, does He not expect us to make ourselves understood? By what tortured logic does this judge arrive at such an
outre position? Elle est folle!

Green was appointed by Carter.

I agree with asdf, this country is getting way to soft and "touchy feely". For enemy "combatants" to be treated humanely their home country has to be a part of the Geneva convention...last I looked Terrorists (ie: the Taliban), swear no alligience to any country.They do all their random killings for a cause. Therefore we should be able to treat them any way we can and perform any types of torture on them nesseccary to get information vital to my and our nations national security.

James, Amen brother!

The Gitmo detainees have had their lives spared - in any war with their Muslim "brothers" they would likely have been summarily executed, if they were lucky. We teach them how to read and feed them better than they've seen in many a day. Would that Judge Green had something to say about the detainess of the rest of Cuba, the ones who vanish for years into Castro's jails for the crimes of running a library.

We have a shaky national will when it comes to being grim-handed in conflict. You hear a lot of "Don't you know that war is bad for your health?" or some such sophomoric, bumper-sticker paean to holding hands and giving the world a Coke. Well, yes, those who favored going to war know quite well that it's terrible. It's supposed to be terrible. That's why you don't go unless you have to - and then, when you do go you'd better mean it.

The Eeevil Neocon Conspiracy is not ignorant of the costs of war. Our enemies are - and they need to learn.