From the Department of WTF

i think that the people do not trust the Justice Dept to sort this out. While they may not fully understand the role of the military you can see how there is less confidence other organs of the Government to get to the bottom of this.

I do not agree with you on any level at all.

People who are not American Citizens, who do not have valid passport visas to be in the United States of America should not be granted automatic rights of citizens. You might want to try and frame the argument around the idea that these rights are given by a higher power and are inalienable, but that is not what the constitution says. We do not even give legal enemy combatants the extent of rights that our citizens are granted, so why should we grant illegal enemy combatants a higher degree of rights than those who would fight us on as close to a fair battlefield as is possible in war? This man is not a citizen, he is not an enemy combatant, he is an illegal enemy combatant who is breaking every covenant that allows modern governments to be able to negotiate and if needed wage wars without endangering lawful innocent civilians. Thus, this person deserves to turned over to a lower level of rights granted enforcement apparatus, such as military and CIA and coercive interrogation should be placed on him if it is deemed that he is not willing to give full details of what he knows about our illegal enemy combatants and their plans. So, I agree with the 71% and 58% of Americans here.

If this person where a Citizen of the United States of America or was a lawful holder of a valid passport visa, I would grant you that this person would be fully be illegible for full rights. A stipulation is that a lawfully valid passport visa would require that the application of said visa was in fact for the specified purpose of the visit to the United States of America, thus if the real reason for someone to file for a visa is invalid the visa itself is no longer a lawfully valid one, thus negating the right to American court systems.

This in no way removes any rights that you have been granted under the Constitution of the United States of America. Thus, I must wonder what your problem with the American Public is. Is it that you think the public is in fact authorizing a restriction of their rights? I do not find this to be valid, although politicians will of course use it for this reason, it still does not place that burden on the citizen, but on the politicians.

I have an idea for you. You have a nice little web page that gets some number of visitors, maybe you could, instead of trying to protect our enemies, use this space to educate people on the difference between a law you would support to protect yourself, your family and theirs and what the politicians have written. Your problem with the patriot act is that it allows authorities to trample the rights of citizens, why not write up a valid patriot act that shows how this protection can be done without encroaching on citizens rights?

America does not torture.

It doesn't even try to "toe the line" on torture.

That is what Reagan declared when he ratified a certain UN edict - if you want to complain, get an ouija board and take it up with him.

Greyhawk, There is no way to make sense of that poll. Unless you get your news from Jon Stewart. 2010 is going to be a challenging year, we will see the best character of Americans, and we may see the worst of americans. With a site like you have, we will have a better chance in seeing the best side of America. Thanks for 2009 may you be blessed in what 2010 brings to you and your family.

"But other than on television and in movies, the military doesn't have a branch, office, capability, mandate, or jurisdiction to "conduct investigations" of terrorist acts on American territory."

You are right, and I did not address the investigative part of the issue. But the military is where war crimes are prosecuted. Terrorism is not just a crime, it is a war crime and needs to be treated as such. We have the CIA to do oversees investigations, along with information sharing 'treaties'(?) with other nations to get the information to the military tribunals. Just because the person is turned over to the military/FBI/CIA does not mean that conventional investigations are to be discontinued, they should not be, but they should be reporting to the military/FBI/CIA (pick one). But the best place to not only get justice for Americans but also provide the most security for American citizens and guests of America through legal visas is through a military court (tribunal or however congress directs the military to do the trial).

Giving non American and uninvited guests access to our court system is a way to ensure that future attackers are better informed on the weaknesses of our country with respect to how we look for terrorists, how we respond to terrorist activity in progress and how we prosecute terrorists.

Americans see terrorists as purely foreigners in general, and instinctively know that these people do not fit the profile of a criminal. People like Timothy McVeigh and other home grown terrorists will go to criminal courts, as American Citizens, they are granted that by the constitution. Others, who do not belong in this country at all, should not be given these rights that many people have fought and died for over the centuries of this great nation, they did not fight others to grant others these rights, they fought to preserve our country and protect our citizens. The constitution is not a suicide pact and it should never be treated as one. We are in an asymmetrical war with an enemy that refuses to do battle, but instead chooses to engage in barbaric acts that defy any sense of honor, and that is what Americans see and that is why they know, at the gut level, these people do not deserve to be treated in a civil polite way.

If I were president, I would make it my duty to make certain that all those who fight in such a way get exactly what they wanted from the beginning, death. First and foremost, any Citizen who works in this fashion would be tried for treason and if convicted be executed shortly after with no prospect for retrial. Any one that is not a citizen would be turned over to the military for a tribunal trial and if convicted would again be executed. They would not get second chances to attack our citizens.

Yeah, it sucks that we would have to be this brutal, and it is not a civilized thing to do, but to do otherwise would quite simply be to allow our civilization to be destroyed by nothing more than its own civility. How many successful attacks do you think it would take to bring America to its knees? The 9/11 attacks alone are pushing multiple trillions of damages. The next attacks could be a bunch of smaller ones that are in the hundreds of billions of dollars each, as transportation and tourist industries bleed out. A chemical attack in a major city or several would be as bad as, if not worse than 9/11, as families try to flee prime target high density urban centers for fear of their loved ones being the next target. That does not even count in nuclear attacks, now that we have proven that we will not stop Iran or North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons.

So, how far should we push the envelope on human rights for those who see no value in American life? I would say that we should push the envelope to the point of making it as close to impossible for them to attack us as is possible. That means finding out exactly how many other extremists this person knows about, who they are, where they are, and if they have any plans. Then we go get those people and do the same to them. In the mean time, we lock our borders to only allow those who we can say have no ties to Islamic extremists into the country. We should also have a 0 tolerance on visa holders and even naturalized citizens who speak out in support of terrorist acts and revoke their privilege to live in the greatest nation in the world.

In the end, American citizens are American Citizens, people who are not American citizens who come to our country to do this country harm deserve not one bit of protection from our constitution. They deserve every bit of brutality that any American can muster to get information that can protect us from their allies.

We hung nazi officials for waterboarding and the other "enhanced interrogation" tactics.

If my fellow Americans decide they can do whatever they want to whoever they want without trial or accountability in order to feel safe, I consider them as much a threat as the terrorists, and I will no longer care about them. Never in my name.

These are acts of war committed by an enemy made more, not less, implacable by the fact that it is a religious war, however unpalatable, unacceptable, or downright nauseating that may be to Americans raised since birth on a steady diet of unthinking acceptance of everything up to child molestation- and unthinking tolerance of groups such as NAMBLA who try to mainstream even that.
These people want to kill my children. I take exception to that.
The term of art most frequently used to describe them- illegal enemy combatants- does not go far enough. Nidal Hassan is a traitor, pure and simple. This latest gomer and the rest of his ilk, hell, I don't know what designation carries the most legal opprobrium. Spy? Saboteur?
The old rules do not apply, in my opinion (and I mean the moral ones; there is no legal justification for the Geneva Convention, etc). We need new laws, perhaps, to cover the situation, but the old rules, mores and laws clearly are of limited utility.
These people want to kill my children; and I DO NOT CARE what means are used to stop them, or how many of them die in the process.
Terrorist need to be turned over to the Army and taken to whatever nation they fear the most.

Eric Holder is as dangerous to this country as any terrorist. Does anyone trust him? I sure don't. In fact he and Janet Incompetano pose more danger to everyday Americans than any terrorist.

This is not clearly a civil/domestic/criminal issue. This is a military strike against civilians by an enemy combatant that was not wearing a uniform. I agree that the FBI should investigate what occurred in the United States, but the combatant should be moved to Gitmo for additional interrogation to be conducted by the CIA and military reference his connections overseas. If it is decided to prosecute him, the FBI can assist with the prosecution at a military tribunal.

This guy should be in GITMO, not a jail. He should not be facing a judge in the Eastern District of Michigan. He should be in interrogation.

"We hung nazi officials for waterboarding and the other "enhanced interrogation" tactics."

Did we? Waterboarding? Really? I know we did so for war atrocities, such as, say the holocaust, so could you give me one instance where it was done for something less than the murder of prisoners of war? The difference here of course is the following, and it is something that you do not understand, our soldiers were acting as legal enemy combatants against the Nazis, the people we are using enhanced interrogation techniques against are acting as illegal enemy combatants that are not privileged to be given the same rights as someone who fights for a known responsible entity, such as a country that can be held accountable for their actions.

The rules of war are made to keep civilian populations safe and secure from the actions of war. Attacks directed against civilian targets are considered war crimes, not just simple crimes. By treating terrorists as though they are civilians entitled to civilian interrogation techniques makes it more likely that more civilians will be the targets of future attacks. By giving terrorists as though they are simple enemy troops also ensures that more civilians will be the targets of future attacks. The solution is not to be made on our end of the battlefield, it is to happen on the terrorist side of the battlefield, when they decide to act as enemy combatants that follow the rules of war, then they should be entitled to an earned treatment as such.