Quote:If your meaning is that the level of discussion tends to fall as sides dig into their chosen position and then start spouting dogma then I agree.

 

This particular subject seems to have gone down to my side being: "They're not soldiers of some nation, treating them as prisoners of war is incorrect, they need to be subject to the due process that the constitution guarantees with no stipulation for citizenship or location," and the opposing side being, "Here are some justifications for why we don't want to follow the constitution in this case."

 

I find the latter particularly ironic given the side it tends to come from. (strict constructionists)

You can choose to ignore the parts where it has been painstaking explained that the United states Government classifies terrorists as Enemy Combatants which fall under military prosecution if you so choose, but that is the whole thing right there...They are not citizens of the US, so they are not covered by the US constitution...The crimes they commit are outside of the United States jurisdiction (for the most part) and even the ones that ARE in the jurisdiction of the US, are classified as TERRORIST ACTS which once again makes the terrorists ENEMY COMBATANTS and fall under Military prosecution...That's why things are the way that they are

---