I’ll allow that there is likely a Common Law definition of “enemy of the United States”, however I doubt any Federal Court of Appeals or Supreme Court of the US empaneled since V-J Day would agree with your definition.

I also respect the fact that those who have honorably served the USA in Korea, Vietnam, the Middle East and other Third World hellholes
especially those in combat arms or military aviation positions exposed to hostile fire will have a different perspective on what an “enemy” is.

Common Law is not to be relied on for anything concerning national survival.

In fact I know of at least one Chief Justice ( > 100 years ago ) who in the Wong Kim Ark decision expressed his belief (in dissent) the creation of the American Republic abrogated the Common Law and thus the courts in the USA shouldn’t use it as a basis for rendering judgments.

lgm said:

…These Democratic Congressmen were trying to stop it…

lgm, I would hope that even you would wonder about the implications that these congressmen might have gone to Iraq on a trip financed by Saddam Hussein.

Or are you suggesting that the ends justify the means?

Today, a majority of Americans wishes the war had been stopped.

lgm, please help me. I’m wondering if these majority of Americans wish that;

1. 24×7 enforcement of the UN’s Southern No-Fly Zone had been continued at that time;

2. 24×7 enforcement of the UN’s Northern No-Fly Zone had been continued at that time; and

3. 24×7 enforcement of the UN’s Embargo had been continued at that time?

Yes or no to each of these, please.

“Following the trip, al Khafaji contributed $5,000 to McDermott’s Legal Defense Fund.”

I think this kinda casts a little doubt on the veracity of that “the Democrats are tough on defense” slogan they’ve been bandying about of late.

“THE WEEKLY STANDARD has contacted McDermott’s office about returning the contribution.”

Does anyone know if McDermott returned the donation? I couldn’t find anything in the article (or the I-net) to indicate he had.