Faisal Shahzad: Civilian, or enemy combatant?

Originally posted by zeeblebot
why do we need them?

why not get rid of them and shift responsibility and practices to military courts?

if a terrorist manages to get to the US and commit a military action, why give him a freebie? "touched home base, nyaa, nyaa, nyaa!!!"

suppose he was wearing a uniform. should he then be tried under martial law or civilian?

"suppose he was wearing a uniform. should he then be tried under martial law or civilian?"

Originally posted by zeeblebot
1) who are you talking about here? it's reasonable to assume that there is a high probability of guilt attached to an arrested person. isn't it the duty of the arresting officers and warrant-granters if necessary) to exercise reasonable care that innocent parties aren't arrested. after that, it is the duty of the investigators, prosecutors, judicial sy ange venue to civilian courts, just because I supported a policy of using military courts?

In the world of the 21st century, the distinction between military and non-military crimes is becoming much narrower than it used to be. It's clear that the old model of troops wearing uniforms is as outdated as the British redcoats were during the American Revolution. Indeed, what terrorist is going to be stupid enough to wear a uniform? (although given the recent track record, brain cells do seem to be in short supply among many terrorists)

Is a drug gang a military group? What about a protest movement that engages in illegal actions? Or some lunatic who goes into a post office and shoots up the place? Or some backwoods militia group that carries out weekend drills involving menacing weapons? Or some heavily armed religious nut that sets up a compound in Texas?

It might be better to create a whole new set of laws for all "conspiratorial actors and organizations" which would cover terrorist cells, gangs, drug rings, and other outlaw groups - where law enforcement goes behind arresting one or two people, and would need to have the tools necessary to round up all of the members of such a group (even if they should reside in a foreign country) and to prevent that group from carrying out additional illegal actions.

But whatever system we use, we need to ensure that people have the right to a fair trial in accord with the constitution. No matter how heinous the crime you are charged with, and no matter how competent and conscientious the investigators, many mistakes will still be made.

And I would hope that all conservatives would make absolutely sure that we're not giving the state too much power.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
why do we need them?

why not get rid of them and shift responsibility and practices to military courts?

if a terrorist manages to get to the US and commit a military action, why give him a freebie? "touched home base, nyaa, nyaa, nyaa!!!"

suppose he was wearing a uniform. should he then be tried under martial law or civilian?

You consider being tried for terrorism, which can carry a death sentence under federal law, a "freebie"? Are you a complete idiot? Did Timmy McVeigh get a "freebie"?

I don't consider leaving a truck filled with explosives in a public area a "military action"; I consider it an act of terrorism. Why you want to treat this guy like a soldier is beyond me.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You consider being tried for terrorism, which can carry a death sentence under federal law, a "freebie"? Are you a complete idiot? Did Timmy McVeigh get a "freebie"?

I don't consider leaving a truck filled with explosives in a public area a "military action"; I consider it an act of terrorism. Why you want to treat this guy like a soldier is beyond me.

MIRANDA

Originally posted by zeeblebot
MIRANDA

Meaning what?

Originally posted by zeeblebot
MIRANDA

once again.

Miranda is about protecting a person from being compelled to testify against himself in a court of law.

It does not limit investigators from questioning terror suspects about who they're conspiring with or what other things they or their group is planning.

I would imagine there are instances where investigators might decide NOT to mirandize a suspect - knowing full well that none of the information that they acquire would be admissable in court - because they're much more interested in getting OTHER information.

It would seem that the most effective questioning occurs when the authorities already have a strong case against the suspect, and the suspect knows it - and the suspect is thus willing to cooperate in the hope of getting a tiny bit of leniency.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Meaning what?

meaning he's committed a military action. why should we extend civilian protections to him?

do you think he himself would deny his action was military in nature?

Originally posted by Melanerpes
So if Al-Qaeda was to recruit a whole bunch of US citizens to create malicious mayhem, those people would be any different from anyone else Al-Qaeda recruited?

yes.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
meaning he's committed a military action. why should we extend civilian protections to him?

do you think he himself would deny his action was military in nature?

Once again - you're presuming all suspects charged with committing a military action are guilty.

Do you really trust government to work so perfectly?

Originally posted by zeeblebot
military actions should invoke military rules and military punishments.

for timothy mcveigh, too.

what would you define as "military actions"?

btw, there is a reason why military rules are called "military", it means they're to be applied to military personnel, people are members of an actual military organization. This individual (faisal) is a civilian, and deserves to be treated as such.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
Once again - you're presuming all suspects charged with committing a military action are guilty.

Do you really trust government to work so perfectly?

why shouldn't i presume he is guilty? am i a court of law? is zeeblebot saying he's committed an action the same as saying he's been convicted in a court of law?

if he is charged with a military action why shouldn't he be treated as an enemy combatant?

how could government work perfectly? isn't that why we have several LONG steps prior to execution of sentence?

Originally posted by generalissimo
what would you define as "military actions"?

btw, there is a reason why military rules are called "military", it means they're to be applied to military personnel, people are members of an actual military organization. This individual (faisal) is a civilian, and deserves to be treated as such.

no uniform = not military?

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

Enemy combatant is a term historically referring to members of the armed forces of the state with which another state is at war.[1][2] Prior to 2008, the definition was: "Any person in an armed conflict who could be properly detained under the laws and customs of war." In the case of a civil war or an insurrection the term "enemy state" may be replaced by the more general term "Party to the conflict" (as described in the 1949 Geneva Conventions Article 3).[3]

In the United States the use of the phrase "enemy combatant" may also mean an alleged member of al Qaeda or the Taliban being held in detention by the U.S. government as part of the war on terror. In this sense, "enemy combatant" actually refers to persons the United States regards as unlawful combatants, a category of persons who do not qualify for prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Conventions. Thus, the term "enemy combatant" has to be read in context to determine whether it means any combatant belonging to an enemy state, whether lawful or unlawful, or if it means an alleged member of al Qaeda or of the Taliban being detained as an unlawful combatant by the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant#Change_of_meaning_in_the_United_States

Change of meaning in the United States

In the 1942 Supreme Court of the United States ruling Ex Parte Quirin, the Court uses the terms with their historical meanings to distinguish between unlawful combatants and lawful combatants:

Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.(Emphasis added)

In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks the United States Congress passed a resolution known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) on September 18, 2001[4], wherein the Congress invoked the War Powers Resolution. Using this authorization granted to him by Congress, on November 13, 2001, President Bush issued a Presidential Military Order: "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism"[5]. The administration chose to call those who it detained under the Presidential Military Orders "enemy combatants". Since then, the administration has formalized its usage of the term by using it specifically for detained alleged members and supporters of al-Qaida or the Taliban. For example

Under the provisions of the Secretary of the Navy Memorandum Implementation of Combatant Status Review Tribunal Procedures for Enemy Combatant Detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base Cuba ... An enemy combatant has been defined as "an individual who was part of or supporting the Taliban or al Qaida forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces." [6]

This lead has been followed by other parts of the Government and some section of the American news media. The result of this new usage means that the term "enemy combatant" has to be read in the context of the article in which it appears as to whether it means a member of the armed forces of an enemy state, or if it means an alleged member of al Qaida held prisoner by the United States.

although, i don't see why the wiki article has to say "Prior to 2008, the definition was: 'Any person in an armed conflict who could be properly detained under the laws and customs of war.' ", given that the supposed "changes" are covering persons to which this "Any person" still applies.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
he's not accused of drug running, embezzlement, or jaywalking.

he's accused of military action while out of uniform.

it makes perfect sense to try him as an enemy combatant.

He's a U.S. citizen. You obviously think that the constitution doesn't apply to all US citizens based solely on what kind of crime they are accused (NOT even convicted) of.