dittohead wrote:John Adams, a British subject and lawyer, believed that British soldiers should receive a fair trial.  I don't dispute this fact.

It is a stretch of vast proportion to assume this tells us anything about how John Adams would react to the Al Qaeda terrorist threat today.

It's not a stretch at all.  At the time, John Adams considered himself more of an "American" (whatever that was) than a British subject.  That's one of the reasones he wanted the revolution!  He knowingly - and at great personal cost - defended people that many considered the enemy.  Why?  Again, because he felt the law was more important that the people involved.

When we lock people up - and they are not POWs (which they weren't - our government said they weren't) then they must be criminally sentenced - which they weren't.  This comes very close to Habeus Corpus.  How?  Because the government was very unclear (is still unclear) about the conditions under which a person would be labeled an enemy combatent.  Once the government *did* label you as such, you lived (and live) in a legal grey area where you are neither afforded the rights of a POW or the rights of a criminal.  What does it take to get labeled an "enemy combatant"?  Well that's the question isn't it?  Osama bin Laden - sure.  The uni-bomber?  Probably not - he's just a criminal...?  David Koresh?  Timothy McVeigh?  You?

When we *allow* the government to create new "categories" of people and don't require them to define them - we set ourselves up for losing our freedoms.

With regards to Guantanemo, we should either:
1. designate them as POWs
2. try them as criminals
3. let them go
4. kill them and try the killers (let the 'good' soldiers fall on their swords)

All of the above would be preferable to the damage that is being done to our Constitution.

It's not a stretch at all.  At the time, John Adams considered himself more of an "American" (whatever that was) than a British subject.  That's one of the reasones he wanted the revolution!  He knowingly - and at great personal cost - defended people that many considered the enemy.  Why?  Again, because he felt the law was more important that the people involved.

What John Adams might have considered himself to be does not change the fact that he was a British subject under British law.  He chose to become a revolutionary thus defying British law, because he objected to unfair taxes without parlimentary representation.

There is no rational way that any of this informs us about John Adam's likely response to Al Qaeda brand terrorism in our present day.

dittohead wrote:

It's not a stretch at all.  At the time, John Adams considered himself more of an "American" (whatever that was) than a British subject.  That's one of the reasones he wanted the revolution!  He knowingly - and at great personal cost - defended people that many considered the enemy.  Why?  Again, because he felt the law was more important that the people involved.

What John Adams might have considered himself to be does not change the fact that he was a British subject under British law.  He chose to become a revolutionary thus defying British law, because he objected to unfair taxes without parlimentary representation.

There is no rational way that any of this informs us about John Adam's likely response to Al Qaeda brand terrorism in our present day.

I'll try to use fewer words - because it is quite simple.  John Adams defended enemies to his country.  Why?  He answered that question in his writings.  Because it was the "right" thing to do.  He wanted America to be a nation of laws - even though he was "breaking British law" by becoming a revolutionary.

How does this not tell you anything about how the founding fathers felt about the law?  Are you trying to be funny?  Seriously.  It's black and white to me.  Is there any evidence that would convince you that the founding fathers (attempted) to hold the law higher than their personal feelings?

I agree with Wayback2002 on this. The main idea that founded this nation was law ruled and not people. By taking people out of the equation, the founding fathers sought to reduce social conflict.

Think about it. You can argue with people and when a person rules over others conflict is almost automatic. You know the old saying, "If he can do it, so can I."

But if law rules the land, then people really don't have as much to fight over. You can of course argue with a piece of paper, but you would look foolish. You can shoot a piece of paper but you would look almost equally foolish and still somewhat talented because you actually hit the target. Nonetheless, when law rules, the people have less inclination to fight each other. However, when people try to put themselves over the law and put the law between the people who govern the law and people whom the law governs, then you have grounds for war, civil war. A bad idea it I say so.

a1kjl wrote:I agree with Wayback2002 on this.

OMG.  A1 and I agree on something!  This proves there's hope for America!