I wanted to respond to the column in your April 13 edition of The Courier-Herald. The piece, penned by staff writer Brian Beckley, appeared in the Our Corner section.

In it, Mr. Beckley laments the continuation of prior administration policies such as the use of military courts in trying enemy combatants. He makes the matter-of-fact point that military courts are “unconstitutional.” Well, sure, of course, everyone knows that, right? While many readers may accept his statement as fact, I’m compelled to make the point that the issue is far more complex as to whether or not the writ of habeas corpus extends to enemy combatants captured on a field of battle. Of course, I am assuming that Mr. Beckley was referencing Article One, Section 9 of our Constitution; of course understanding that this provision wasn’t extended to non-U.S. citizens until almost a century after the Constitution was itself adopted. Since then, various courts have both reaffirmed this extension or suspended it, depending upon the prevailing political currents and even more so – on the growing complexities in play at that moment in history. Issues such as today’s non-state sponsored militants engaged in terrorist acts against U.S. interests on foreign soil.

Mr. Beckley seems to find the issue clearly spelled out in our Constitution or perhaps he is simply parroting the popular liberal talking points verbatim. But whether looking at the language used in Article One or the due process clause in the Fifth Amendment (again referenced in the 14th Amendment), this is a far more complicated issue, as Mr. Obama has clearly come to realize, or at least admit.  And let’s be clear about exactly who is being subjected to these military courts; these “enemy combatants” are in point of fact, enemy soldiers, terrorists, and/or Al Qaida militants shooting and killing American soldiers on foreign soil and in battle. Mr. Beckley seems to find simplistic clarity in his reading of our Constitution and, therefore, in my estimation, he must be referring to a different constitution or perhaps he has the definitive interpretation of this foundational document and its contextual meaning as articulated in The Federalist Papers. Then again, it may just be my ignorance flaunting itself. But I digress.

In any case, the current Supreme Court is also finding this issue complex and is currently “punting” the appeals being filed on behalf of these enemy combatants back to the lower courts, and may or may not again weigh in. Their silence however, speaks volumes. Maybe they should consult Mr. Beckley.

As you may have guessed by now, I am one of those party-hijacking, crazy, Tea Party members Mr. Beckley referred to in his column.  And while I stop short of identifying myself as a “birther,” I find it humorous how liberals (and Mr. Beckley) immediately play the “ignorant, racist ideologue” card any time someone even mentions this issue. But this is simply standard operating procedure for liberals; resorting to personal attacks versus arguing the facts. So here they are:

While Obama’s Certification of Live Birth was in fact released, it is also true that this is the short-form birth certificate and the more detailed Certificate of Live Birth has not been released. Yes, conspiracy theories are aplenty as always (Bush was involved in 9/11, Kennedy was assassinated by the CIA, etc.), and the fact that Mr. Obama did not release the more detailed document containing items such as signatures of doctor(s), witnesses, vital statistics, length and weight, etc., was bound to give rise to this.

Mr. Beckley can count me among those proud “racist ignorant ideologues” who find it curious that Mr. Obama has spent over $2 million in legal fees to block access to his long-form birth certificate along with almost all of his other personal records and documents, such as his passport application records, high school and college records and documents that would explain why he gave up his license to practice law, etc. Curious minds want to know why – and no, we are not all demented.

Finally, while the absence of evidence that Barack was born anywhere other than in Hawaii prevents me from taking seriously the “He was born in Kenya” theory, I find anyone who describes the evidence supporting this claim as “overwhelming” equally unserious.

I often wonder at what point I became a racist, ignorant ideologue, given that I am a college-educated minority and the recipient of racism on and off throughout my life. Maybe Mr. Beckley can provide me with some guidance on this, too. As I mentioned above, perhaps Mr. Beckley was simply parroting liberal talking points, so allow me to end by parroting a conservative one: If you’re not a liberal when you’re young you don’t have a heart; but if you’re not a conservative when you grow older, you don’t have a brain.

John Gonzales