Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post
To make the US look bad? Mission accomplished. The process surely didn't protect his rights, the Constitution is pretty clear IMO on how your rights are processed. They even have a special section for treason so it's not unreasonable that we can grant protections even to the most vile. He could have been prosecuted for what he did do and taken out for punishment and for what he might do. Again, Congress is at fail here because to this point they have not addressed this scenario which I believe is in their power. I actually think the Executive should be aggressive in carrying out their national security role but they have to be checked by the other two branches. I'm stunned that this is even a point of argument.
I agree, its tricky. As it begs reason as to what level of autonomy the executive must have to carry into force its Constitutional role. The Judicial branch is the monday morning qback really; their role is solely as a trier of fact, not propositional, some evidence of a wrong must exist, and (this is important) someone must bring such a claim-- as such, their ruling in the case I linked was justly dismissed.

Should Congress elaborate on the intent and extent of the power and process terrorists are brought to justice? Sure, of course they should. But you can't say the executive was wrong for having carried into force their own policy when Congress gave them broad reign over how to combat terror. However, laws can (and should) be adjusted to better fit their prescribed intent; so I don't think its reasonable for COngress to impose their, or the Justice Branch's, participation into the executive function-- separation of powers.