remember the GOOD OLD DAYS, when we Americans would refer patronizingly and condescendingly to those BAD countries– Mexico, Albania, Singapore– where non-citizens could be locked up indefinitely without being charged? And how great America was because it didn't do that?

heh.

remember the GOOD OLD DAYS, when we Americans would refer patronizingly and condescendingly to those BAD countries– Mexico, Albania, Singapore– where non-citizens could be locked up indefinitely without being charged? And how great America was because it didn't do that?

:)

In which court would you have these folks tried?

Since they're not US citizens and have not broken laws on US soil, we can't try them in US court.

Since they're not sworn members of a soverign nation's military or signatories to the Geneva Conventions, they can't be tried in an International War Crimes court.

Since they're not likely to get a fair trial in their host country, they can't be tried in that country's court.

So... what would you do with them? Release them? Where? IIRC, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty Int'l, et al raised a stink when talk surfaced of releasing them to the countries from which they came, and we damn sure don't want them on the streets of LA or New York (though, come to think of it, setting 'em free in the Bronx with T-shirts saying "I'm an Islamic terrorist" does hold some appeal.) ;)

So, what do we do with them?

I don't have the answer.... do you?

Since they're not US citizens and have not broken laws on US soil, we can't try them in US court.

The serious danger here is that the rule applies not only to foreign fighters but to anyone designated an 'enemy combatant,' a term which has no definition other than 'person we choose to call 'enemy combatant,'' and could easily be applied to a US citizen

Do you trust the currrent administration to operate without checks and balances?

Well if they haven't broken any laws, why are they being arrested at all?

This law is so blantantly unconstitutional that even Bush's SCOTUS cant uphold it and still retain a shread of legitimacy.

Ah, good.... the Constitutional Legal Scholar has spoken. We're lucky to have such a learned and academic opinion.

The Supreme Court has previously upheld the legality of trying and executing US citizens and unlawful combatants via military tribunals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Quirin

Here's a little more background on the US citizen that was executed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hans_Haupt

You can certainly disagree with the Bush Admin, but they have a pretty solid Supreme Court precedent to base their case on.

We actually misnamed the war on terror, it ought to be the 'struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world.'

I don't think you can win it [the war on terrorism]. But I think you can create conditions so that the -- those who use terror as a tool are -- less acceptable in parts of the world.

There -- it's -- you know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.

It's a different kind of war because we're fighting people who are -- they send youngsters to their suicidal deaths and they try to find a dark cave. They're kind of lurching around in the dark corners of some cities around the world. They're in over 60 countries. And slowly but surely, we're dismantling the terrorist network, which hates us because of what we love. See, they hate the fact that we love freedom. They can't stand the fact that in this country people can worship the almighty God any way he or she sees fit..

There is no precedent in the war on terror. This is the first war of the 21st century, unique in its nature.

Decisive ally? Ally? Decisive ally? Of course, Jacques Chirac. I -- listen, thank you for the trick question. Let me talk about this ally. The phone rang the day after the attack -- the day of the attack. I can't remember exactly when, but it was immediately. And he said, "I'm your friend." On this continent, France takes the lead in helping to hunt down people who want to harm America and/or the French, or anybody else

You know, people oftentimes ask me what can they do to help fight in the war against terror. Fire fighters answer that call every day.

My call to people in this country is that if you want to join on the war on terror, if you want to fight evil, love your neighbor like you'd like to be loved yourself.

You're kidding. Please tell me you're kidding.

:roll:

There is at least one interesting difference between the case cited and the situation now. In World War II the US had specifically declared war against several countries. The resulting conflict had a well-defined beginning and a well-defined end. The enemies were clearly defined. But what is the situation now? Is there really war? When did it begin and when does it end? Who is it against? Let's just see if George W. Bush can help clear this stuff up:

Is there really a war?


Assuming there is a war, when does it end?


Is the war related to the Iraq invasion?


Who is the war against?


Is there a precedent from earlier wars?


Who are our most decisive allies?


What can regular citizens do to help in the war?


Is the war related to Jesus Christ's golden rule?

actually, no, hes not kidding.

Do you trust the currrent administration to operate without checks and balances?

actually, no, hes not kidding. if they are not US citizens and have not broken US laws on US soil, then it follows that they have not broken any law, as long as US is concerned. they might have broken laws elsewhere, but again, that is not a legal reason for US officals to arrest them.

or do you believe that US laws hold for every human being on planet earth?

......So you'd let armed insurgents (or "Freedom Fighters," if you buy into Sheehan's s---) who have shot at US soldiers, plotted to bomb those US soldiers, conspired to committ terrorism against US soldiers or citizens, and so forth (or, for you, Slovenian soldiers/citizens) free to do it again, just because you don't yet know the legal ramifications of detaining them?

Nice...........

So you'd let armed insurgents (or "Freedom Fighters," if you buy into Sheehan's s---) who have shot at US soldiers, plotted to bomb those US soldiers, conspired to committ terrorism against US soldiers or citizens, and so forth (or, for you, Slovenian soldiers/citizens) free to do it again, just because you don't yet know the legal ramifications of detaining them?

Nice.

So, Reno...


Besides:
How do you really feel about this, and what is your true opinion??

Col and Overlord:

So, again, my question remains:

In which court do you bring forth these charges? Who has jurisdiction over unlawful armed combatants? Geneva? Nope... Hague? Nope.... US District? Nope.... US Federal? Nope....

And THAT question, as far as I know, has not yet been answered.

thats easy. the countryes theyve commited the acts in have the jurisdiction. in iraq, it is under their jurisdiction, in afghanistan under afghan etc.

So, is shooting at a US soldier against the law in Iraq? Afghanistan?

That would depend, as in most countries, on what the US soldier is doing. If he or she is shooting at you, then no, it's not illegal to shoot at him or her. If he or she is not shooting at you, then yes, it's illegal to shoot at him or her.

I'm not sure why you're confused by this; laws have existed for many years which cover these situations. They work pretty well for the most part and are, I would have thought, common knowledge. How you can have missed them I really don't know, and if you don't know much about them, as you claim, then I'm unsure why you would want them changed.

The laws I assume you're referring to are the laws governing the conduct of war. Correct?

Col and Overlord:

So, again, my question remains:

In which court do you bring forth these charges? Who has jurisdiction over unlawful armed combatants? Geneva? Nope... Hague? Nope.... US District? Nope.... US Federal? Nope....

And THAT question, as far as I know, has not yet been answered.

The laws I assume you're referring to are the laws governing the conduct of war. Correct?

didnt the war end, like, months ago?

don't worry, there will be a new war, opening soon in a theatre near you