Really? Suspension of habeas corpus ring a bell? Palmer Raids? Japanese/Italian/German internment? “Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party”?

There were good reasons at the time for all of the above. But whether you think they were good or not, Abhi et. al. would surely question their constitutionality if they were tried today.

I should also note that it’s pretty funny to see leftists appealing to the Constitution now as a source of authority, given their total disregard for most of its provisions (especially the 2nd and 10th amendments) and their clear contempt for America and Americans.

I should also note that anyone who equates “patriotism” with “jingoism” is the type who will be the first to feign mock outrage when someone questions your patriotism. First and foremost, patriotism is about acknowledging that – particularly in times of conflict – American interests come before the interests of other countries. You can’t be an international humanist who thinks all people are equal and still be a patriot. Patriotism is fundamentally about treating your extended family – your fellow citizens – with a different set of rules than you treat outsiders, just as you treat your mother differently than you would a random individual.

Al Qaeda is levying war against the United States. They are not common muggers or robbers. They are an international conspiracy of terrorist cells, fueled by oil and Islamic fundamentalism, and capable of co-opting entire states (as they did in Afghanistan, and are currently trying to do in Sudan and Iraq) and exporting Jihad. They are not as smart as the Communists, and the threat they pose is not nuclear annihilation of the world but rather of one city. Nevertheless they have to be taken seriously.

And that means acknowledging that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. There is absolutely no reason to extend the benefit of the doubt to the guys in Guantanamo, the vast majority of whom were picked up carrying AK-47′s and fighting for the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

And when it comes to individuals suspected of terrorism who are NOT citizens of the United States – or who are “citizens” solely because of the technicality of obstetric tourism, like Hamdi – they should not get the same protections as born or naturalized US citizens.

The other point that is of relevance is that the cost-benefit analysis being made here on the part of the left is juvenile. While it’s a morally bankrupt principle even in the standard criminal case (because it ignores the havoc wreaked by freed criminals), one REALLY can’t afford the “better 99 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be jailed” mentality when it comes to guilty men who’re seeking to blow up the World Trade Center. The consequences of releasing the wrong guy are much higher when you’re talking about terrorists.

But that’s my point. There are no good answers here. The only 2 that you / i / the reporter can find are “hold indefinitely” or “deport”. Both are bad but you seem to be penning responsibility for the “bad” in both cases upon “conservaties”. That’s the weird part.

It’s not “conservative ideology” that’s the problem here, it’s the fact that occasionally, life sucks and doesn’t present us with the ideal option. The “grey” choice here is actually “indefinite detention.”

Vinod, OTOH, is arguing for discretion and trusting the state, a position most often taken by a liberal. That we ought allow the state latitude to do what is most efficient in a particular circumstance, rather than having a rule bound procedure for the state all the time.

Ah, I love inversion.

The point though isn’t whether or not its a big logical leap. The point is whether or not it is a big legal leap. The answer is no. Any law a government CAN legally break it will. All governments throughout history prove this. You cannot ask me to make a specific decision given the choices you provide because that limited scenario has already been proven irrelevant by the case of the Canadian. Conservatives always provide black and white choices in a world of grey. Thats why we are in this mess in the first place.

BUT, that is NOT what the measure entails – it merely says “we will resume deportations to Syria as required” when before, the policy was “under no circumstances will we ever deport to Syria”.

It certainly does NOT say “deport to Syria if we can’t torture him ourselves” –> that’s a big logical leap you + the reporter are making…

Remember also that there is a very high rate of false positives amongst suspects in low intensity conflicts.

I’m trying to force you to pick a side. If we pick up an Egyptian / Saudi / Syrian in Iraq…

Either we detain him indefinitely in Gitmo, etc. when we don’t have enough evidence to “make a conviction stick” and the left gets up in arms about the detainment.

Or we deport him somewhere. Pref. back to Egypt / Saud / Syria. In which case the left gets up in arms about the deportment.

Critics can’t have it both ways.

I know why both of the options are bad, can be abused, etc. What I want to know what other options there are (if any? Indefinite detnetion in a US Taxpayer-funded resort is NOT one of them). AND I want you to pick the one that’s least bad…