Please help me out. I'm not a big student of politics or law, and I'm confused.
President Obama just gave a speech about detainees and how to deal with them, and he proposed some new stuff about keeping folks for a prolonged period of time when you can't convict them of anything but know they're bad guys. Obviously some people are upset about his proposals, which is normal with all things political. But the people complaining are saying essentially that it's unconstitutional to keep people in prisons indefinitely without charges.
Doesn't the constitution only apply to citizens of the country, or people here legally? Shouldn't we be more concerned with making sure the Geneva conventions are adhered to, since they're sort of prisoners of war? And why can't we just give these people back to their own countries so they can try and jail them and whatever? Seems to me this is a new situation... the US is at war but not with specific countries. At war with groups of people, terrorist organizations, etc. There doesn't seem to be an existing set of rules to deal with people you pick up on the battlefield shooting at you, when you can't send them back to their own governments to deal with when the war's over. What does the Geneva convention, or any international rules, say about stuff like this? You pick up a guy in Afghanistan because he's shooting at your guys. He's Pakistani. He's sitting in your jail telling you he can't wait to get out and blow up more Americans. Your evidence isn't strong or is tainted (also, what does that mean? I hear that a lot, that we've got bad guys who we can't convict because of "tainted evidence"). Pakistan doesn't want him back. What's supposed to happen?
Sorry if this seems ignorant and confusing... I'm very confused myself.