P.S.  I know you will most likely disagree  :-)  but my stance as well as the government's stance is that terrorist do not deserve civil rights, foreign or domestic.  If a domestic civilian conducts terrorism - they lost their American civil rights.  It is the way it is, and I know that all of the crying from human rights organizations will not change things.

As far as Gitmo - Obama has had to battle with Congress - therefore, not allowed to make changes at this time.

Hi:  This is what I was referring to.  Go to this section:

SEC. 412. MANDATORY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS; HABEAS CORPUS; JUDICIAL REVIEW.

with the link below - and page 81 in the viewer.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ56/pdf/PLAW-107publ56.pdf

 Frankly, studying Intelligence/Intelligence Analysis and National Security, if the person is a threat to National Security, they can use that excuse. But if they are a threat, providing the US are not committing any crimes against their person, I do not have any sympathy for terrorist.  They are terrorist.  Understand the definition and understand why.

Also, if they are terrorist - and committing crimes against this nation - why should they receive any rights.  That is (and I support) this whole thing, since Bush (though I am not a republican), that terrorist should have absolutely no civil rights - for the exception of those that keeps them from being abused.  However, I am not naive' in which I know we assassinate as well as torture, but not on our own shores to keep from hearing the public's mouth...and other moral dilemmas that get in the way of catching a terrorist.

This conversation, I know, can be debated..but I was just giving you other views just in case you have not seen them as of yet.

You are very welcome..

thanks! you too!

Thank you . :))