What is your opinion with respect to National Security being at risk if we grant our rights to enemy combantants? Two parts: What is the purpose of taking prisoners? Gather intelligence and remove indivuals from the fight without having to kill them. The purpose is not to rehabilitate them, it is not to punish them. Once the intelligence value has been extracted--which is almost instantaneous but certainly completed in less than a year, the POW becomes a burden, but, probably someone you want out of the game. The problem becomes when you strat mixing metaphores so to speak---we call them enemy combatants so we can hold them indefinetly, but we want to try them because they fought us--I think that is a contradiction. The basic tenents of the Geneva Convention and the "Rules of war" are that enemy combatants have rights as humans. WIth abhorrent exceptions, we are generally in compliance. So, lets approach your question slightly differently--what harm is done to National Security by granting constitutional rights to enemy combatants? I would offer none.You can hold an enemy combatant until the conflict ends--not sure why we bother but we can do that. If you want to try him for a crime, then that prosecution should be a legal one--otherwise why do it? Keep in mind, all we are talking about is
aknowledging who we have, what their crime is and trying it in open court.
Did you think Lincoln was correct in suspending the writ or would argue that he shouldn't have ?
I think Lincoln acted appropriately within the context of there being an open rebellion. I don't think it had an impact on the outcome of the civil war--much like the Alien and Sedition acts or Japanese Interment--but certainly less agregious