The call for Assange's assassination is the topic of the Hawkins column about which we are commenting. Also, Assange can hardly be designated as an enemy combatant. Perhaps I should have said "EVEN enemy combatants have at least some rights . . . "

Jack, While I admittedly haven't looked up the elements of the crime, espionage would seem to be a logical choice. I do know that one need not be an American citizen to face espionage charges -- otherwise, foreigners could not be convicted of it. On the other hand, if none of our criminal laws will touch the guy, so be it. Craft criminal laws in the future to cover this behavior. It's not as if this scenario is far-fetched. If none of our laws cover this behavior, then our lawmakers have been remiss.

DMSITW, The question you answered was not really the one I was trying to pose. I agree that Assange cannot be tried for treason, for the reason that he is not a U.S. citizen. On the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court (which sets the "law of the land," whether I like its decisions or not) has held that enemy combatants have at least some rights based upon the Constitution. At a minimum, they cannot be detained indefinitely without trial -- and certainly cannot simply be executed without some chance to mount a defense. It appears that they do not have the full array of rights U.S. citizens enjoy under the Constitution, but they do have some. Again, I do not cheer the release of thousands of classified documents; nor do I hail...

A thoughtful and passionate response, USAMan. Also a cool handle. As a Navy veteran (submariner); I very much approve. I agree that Assange and company are a problem that we must deal with, but I am against his assassination. Again, the administration is defending the practice of assassinating U.S. citizens in federal court, arguing that such a hit list is a "state secret," and thus not reviewable by any court. Think about the implications if the "state secrets" argument wins the day. The government would have unlimited power to snuff out any dissenters. If this administration did not use the power to such an end, then some future one certainly would. Absolute power corrupts absolutely -- such a truth is hard to ignore. And...

On goes the drumbeat of war. Damn the civil rights, full speed ahead. Despite the outcry, has anyone -- even one person -- been harmed due to these or other "leaks" from Wikileaks. If so, then I want someone here to name this person and cite to a source. If not, then what harm has this man really caused? I cannot find a single story about Wikileaks information leading to the injury or death of anyone. Surely such an event would have made the news, given the magnitude of the Wikileaks stories. Are the rights we enjoy here in this country natural rights "endowed by [our] Creator" and "inalienable?" Our Founders certainly thought so. If so, does it really matter if Julian Assange is a citizen or not? If he were tried as a...

Do foreigners not also have rights in our system of justice? Are those rights not "inalienable" and "endowed by [our] Creator?" If so, should we simply ignore them every time someone uses the word "terrorist." Many, many of the "terrorists" we have captured on the battlefield and detained for years have been released because there was simply no proof against them. Evidence obtained through the use of torture is excluded NOT because it could be inaccurate, but because it violates the right of the tortured person not to incriminate himself. NO government should have this power. Keep in mind that the current administration has instituted a program to assassinate -- wherever they may be found, even far from any battlefield --...

The Supreme Court has NEVER ruled that sodomy is normal (or 'not abnormal,' as you put it). If you believe otherwise, please cite the case, or at least give the style of the case, or otherwise identify it. The Court has, on privacy grounds, overturned a State law prohibiting sodomy.

James hit the crux of the question, which most of the posters here ignore. This is not a case of gender discrimination; a man (heterosexual or homosexual) may choose any consenting woman of age and of sufficiently distant blood relation to marry. Likewise, a woman (heterosexual or homosexual) may choose any consenting man of age and of sufficiently distant blood relation to marry. Men and women are thus treated equally under Proposition 8. The problem for homosexuals is that they do not WANT to marry someone of the opposite gender. Those in favor of recognition of gay marriage do not wish to eliminate different treatment of men and women -- as shown above, men and women are treated exactly the same under Proposition 8. The gay...

These are positive signs, but we have a LONG way to go. Given the raw lust for power living in the heart of nearly every politician in Washington, it's going to be a tough row to hoe.

I like Michael Reagan, but he conflates Conservatism with being a Republican. Lately, the two are worlds apart in Washington. Corruption is rampant in both parties. For many years now, Republicans have supported policies that bleed away individual freedoms, grow government, and move power away from the states -- and to the federal government -- No Child Left Behind, Medicare Drug Benefit, every unfunded mandate emanating from Washington, "Assault Weapons" ban (which many Republicans supported) and many, many more.

Republicans in...