So anyone else think this is a very big deal?

Section 948c of title 10 U.S.C., as added by the Act, states, "Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter" - with "alien" defined in section 948a(3) as "a person who is not a citizen of the United States".

It was a mere generation ago that foreign born (alien) enemy combatants were shot on site. Perhaps in kinder, gentler outfits like the Calvary you could get a hearing in front of a few mocking officers before you were hung.

Should foreign born enemy combatants be guaranteed the same benefits of justice accorded to an American accused of criminality?

I would say yes. But are thousands of "trials" feasible during an all out war?

Is not the jailing of enemy combatants MUCH IMPROVED over the old way of brutally murdering captured soldiers?
 
Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

It was a mere generation ago that foreign born (alien) enemy combatants were shot on site.
More...

:confused:
This concept of "enemy combatants" didn't exist "a mere generation ago." In fact, it didn't exist 6 years ago. AFAIK, captured foreign enemy soldiers were not shot on site. There was something called the Geneva Convention that expressly prohibited this.

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

Is not the jailing of enemy combatants MUCH IMPROVED over the old way of brutally murdering captured soldiers?
More...

You missed the point completely. Who decides who is an "enemy combatant?" The government? I thought you conservatives were supposed to distrust the government.
 
Huh? Because the jargon is new you somehow think the concept of foreign born enemy (soldier, terrorist, combatant, whatever) is new? Who's always decided who the "enemy" is? The arcane devices of war aren't exactly avant garde.

The rules of the Geneva Convention weren't adopted until well after WWll.

Read this: The way it was in America during FDR.

http://www.shelter-island.org/german_spies.html
Quote from james_bond_3rd:

:confused:
This concept of "enemy combatants" didn't exist "a mere generation ago." In fact, it didn't exist 6 years ago. AFAIK, captured foreign enemy soldiers were not shot on site. There was something called the Geneva Convention that expressly prohibited this.



You missed the point completely. Who decides who is an "enemy combatant?" The government? I thought you conservatives were supposed to distrust the government.
More...
 
Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

Huh? Because the jargon is new you somehow think the concept of foreign born enemy (soldier, terrorist, combatant, whatever) is new? Who's always decided who the "enemy" is? The arcane devices of war aren't exactly avant garde.

The rules of the Geneva Convention weren't adopted until well after WWll.

Read this: The way it was in America during FDR.

http://www.shelter-island.org/german_spies.html
More...

I'm amazed at your deliberate ignorance. The whole point of inventing "enemy combatant" was to bypass the Geneva Convention. If there is no difference between soldier, terrorist, and combatant, then why all of suddern the need for this new law?
 
What's the big deal? The law provides for a hearing before a military court for captured enemy combatants and it provides for an appeal process all the way to the Supreme Court. You don't think that's fair?
 
Quote from Arnie:

What's the big deal?
More...

I`m no lawyer. But dont the two below sections basically allow all rights to be stripped away? First take away dues process and then allow the "decider" in chief to make up violations as he sees fit. Legalese anyone?

(Sec. 5) Prohibits a person from invoking the Geneva Conventions in any habeas corpus or other civil action to which the United States, a current or former officer, employee, or member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its states or territories.

(Sec. 6) Authorizes the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and to promulgate standards and regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. Directs the President to issue such interpretations through Executive Orders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top