Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Manx
Mojo_PeiPei, your position, and the position of the White House could not be more deplorable. Dozens and dozens of people detained in Gitmo have been released (after years of detention with no communication with anyone outside) because they were innocent. The position of the White House from the begining has been that these people were defacto denied Habeous Corpus because they were not on U.S. soil. SCOTUS found that to be a crock, and forced the Executive to begin trials to determine status - i.e. the people ARE NOT illegal enemy combatants (whatever THAT means).
So your position that it is acceptable that they are held indefintely is false.
And let's not forget Hamdi - a U.S. citizen, held for two years under the guise of an "Enemy Combatant" for which the SCOTUS (all with the exception of the neo-nazi Thomas) determined was illegal. Eventually forced to renounce his citizenship and accept deportation.
Your justification for the classification "Enemy Combatant" is also weak. Simply because there is historical precedent does not make it acceptable today. There is historical precedent for slavery, historical precedent for the disenfranchisement of women - historical precedent does not equal justifiable.
But really, this is all OBVIOUS. And the fact that it even recieves the debate that people like you require is astoundlingly sad.
|
Illegal combatant is a legal binding status. It is applicable to asshats like Al Qaeda who are not a regular sanctioned state army who engage in combat. You dismissal of it because of historical precedents is ridiculous, the term has merit because we ratified it in treaties for the laws of war both foreign and domestic.
Secondly, great I'm glad that men determined to be innocent have been sent free. It sucks that it took years, but the process is different because again THEY ARE SUBJECT TO MILITARY LAW, IT IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BALL GAME THEN COMMON CIVIL LAW.
As far as the SCOTUS putting the status to trial is nothing new. Again I refer to Ex parte Quirin, the samething happened. The SCOTUS found it was acceptable to deny them Habeas Corpus because as unlawful enemy belligerents, they had no claim to it in the name of common defence, something the president and congress are afforded through the constitution.