Lonecowboy said:
I think her main point was "prolonged detention" of American citizens and the trampling of our rights secured by our Constitution!
detaining prisoners of war is one thing.. . not returning them to the battlefield until the hostilities are finished has been the responsible and humane way of actually finishing a war.. and is upheld by our Constitution
to say it is contradiction or violation of the constitution is not correct.
The U.S. Constitution specifically includes the habeas procedure in the Suspension Clause(Clause 2), located in Article One, Section 9.
Section 9: Limits on Congress
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
With terrorists there are new problems in detention that some have not been able to reconcile with our Constitution.. some argue because terrorism does not fit the classic description of rebellion or invasion..
many incorrectly rely on the invasion to apply to prisoners of war.. but Terrorism does fit the classic definition of rebellion.
Rebellion, uprising or insurrection, is a refusal of obedience or order.
so if that is her main point then she is wrong... if her point was to show that President Obama does not have the right to detain without congressional approval and is overstepping his authority again them I would agree with her.. as I did.