No, we did not sign Protocol I. And now we are being held up to its bogus standards.
Legal precedence is hardly a moot point.
He did not circumvent anything, because we never signed Protocol I. I am not sure what you mean with European International Law, I never said there was such a thing, but Europeans do indeed have their own unique view of customary international law, and they are trying to hold us to Protocol I standards.
It is not illegal.
It is immaterial that Clinton and others gave Bush a clear legal precedence to do exactly what he is doing? If you truly were against what you claim to be you would be against not only Bush but all of the Presidents who have been setting this legal precedence for Bush to follow. I suspect you are simply anti-Bush.
Being picked up on the battlefield of any enemy fighting against the US is not treason? And he is entitled to a trial by jury? The Constitution is not meant to protect traitors and foreign individuals.
Two cases of people who are clearly guilty is your "evidence" to claim that the Constitution is in shambles?
Interpreting rights for foreigners, exactly what the founder fathers had in mind right? I am also not sure where they get off doing that job if they were bothering to follow the actual constitution.