Obama administration asserts indefinite detention of enemy combatants without trial

[Bjorn]

Giving captured terrorists status as POWs would be a step in the right direction - however, I really don't like this:

... could hold suspected terrorists without trial ...

 

[WildCat]

... could hold suspected terrorists without trial ...

Why is there a need to try them? If they are enemy combatants there is no need for a trial, in fact trying them solely for being an enemy combatant is not allowed under the Geneva Conventions. But it is perfectly acceptable to hold them until it is deemed they are no longer a threat or until hostilities are ended, whichever comes first.

 

[Upchurch]

Possibly... if they are indeed enemy combatants?

But how do you know? Guilty until proven innocent?

 

[WildCat]

But how do you know? Guilty until proven innocent?

Being an enemy combatant isn't a crime, so what is this "guilt" and "innocence" you speak of?

 

[Upchurch]

Being an enemy combatant isn't a crime, so what is this "guilt" and "innocence" you speak of?

So, if the US government grabs a US citizen out of an airport on US soil and holds them without charges or access to council for years, do you feel that this is acceptable so long as the government uses the magic words, "enemy combatant"? Do you feel they should not be made to justify that claim to some appropriate authority?

 

[JihadJane]

I'd leave that up to the soldier in question.

Chop their heads off?

You might not, but you'd know if they were third parties to the conflict, which is what all of the people detained at Guantanamo Bay were.

So executing people who have no part in the conflict is OK too?

Um... they already do that.

Sometimes.

And who is this "we"?

Law abiding folk like the ones shooting prisoners in the back of the head.

 

[Bjorn]

Why is there a need to try them? If they are enemy combatants there is no need for a trial, in fact trying them solely for being an enemy combatant is not allowed under the Geneva Conventions. But it is perfectly acceptable to hold them until it is deemed they are no longer a threat or until hostilities are ended, whichever comes first.

That's the big if - these were called "suspected" terrorists, remember?

 

[gumboot]

I don't see how that means he will be granting them POW status. It seems exactly what the Bush policy is. Why would he say "enemy combatants" instead of "POWs"" if that's what was meant?

I just read that the USA has their own unique definition of "enemy combatant" which may be confusing things.

However consider:

If a combatant is unlawful, they must be tried and either convicted of crimes, or re-assessed as a lawful combatant.

Only a lawful combatant can be held "indefinitely without trial" which is clearly what they're talking about. Ergo they're talking about POWs. They have to be.

 

[gumboot]

So, if the US government grabs a US citizen out of an airport on US soil and holds them without charges or access to council for years, do you feel that this is acceptable so long as the government uses the magic words, "enemy combatant"? Do you feel they should not be made to justify that claim to some appropriate authority?

A combatant can only be detained in the theatre of operations. That would be, in this case, Afghanistan or Iraq. An enemy combatant's status is determined by their actions at the time of capture. If you're engaged in some sort of activity supporting combat operations you're a combatant.

So a bomb-maker caught outside Kabul is an enemy combatant. A suspected terrorist caught in a US airport is just a regular ole criminal.

 

[WildCat]

So, if the US government grabs a US citizen out of an airport on US soil and holds them without charges or access to council for years, do you feel that this is acceptable so long as the government uses the magic words, "enemy combatant"? Do you feel they should not be made to justify that claim to some appropriate authority?

They do get to challenge their status in civilian courts, so your point is...?

 

[WildCat]

If a combatant is unlawful, they must be tried and either convicted of crimes, or re-assessed as a lawful combatant.

No, this is not part of the GC. Where did you get this idea from?

 

[WildCat]

A combatant can only be detained in the theatre of operations. That would be, in this case, Afghanistan or Iraq. An enemy combatant's status is determined by their actions at the time of capture. If you're engaged in some sort of activity supporting combat operations you're a combatant.

So a bomb-maker caught outside Kabul is an enemy combatant. A suspected terrorist caught in a US airport is just a regular ole criminal.

Both the Bush and Obama administrations disagree with you.

During her confirmation hearing last week, Elena Kagan, the nominee for solicitor general, said that someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law — indefinite detention without a trial — even if he were captured in a place like the Philippines rather than in a physical battle zone.

Ms. Kagan’s support for an elastic interpretation of the “battlefield” amplified remarks that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. made at his own confirmation hearing. And it dovetailed with a core Bush position. Civil liberties groups argue that people captured away from combat zones should go to prison only after trials.

There is no boundary for this conflict. New York City was a battlefield in this conflict.

 

[WildCat]

That's the big if - these were called "suspected" terrorists, remember?

As noted, they get to challenge their status in civilian courts.

If they are actually charged with war crimes they get a military tribunal.

 

[Bjorn]

As noted, they get to challenge their status in civilian courts.

If they are actually charged with war crimes they get a military tribunal.

So in other words we could not hold suspected terrorists detained forever without trial, we have to determine if they actually are terrorists.

 

[WildCat]

So in other words we could not hold suspected terrorists detained forever without trial, we have to determine if they actually are terrorists.

This isn't complicated. A power at war is allowed to hold enemy combatants until said war is over or until they determine the detainee is no longer a threat.

If you want to try people for crimes you have a trial to determine if there is enough evidence to declare them guilty of the crime.

Being an enemy combatant isn't a crime in and of itself.

Just because an enemy combatant is also a suspected terrorist doesn't mean they somehow have the right to not be detained, nor are criminal charges required.

 

[Upchurch]

They do get to challenge their status in civilian courts, so your point is...?

Yes, now. As long as Obama doesn't follow Bush's example in this regard, that is a change for the better, imho.

 

[Bjorn]

This isn't complicated. A power at war is allowed to hold enemy combatants until said war is over or until they determine the detainee is no longer a threat.

But will have to, somehow, determine if those persons are enemy combatants and if they should be treated as POWs. "Suspected" terrorists are not by definition enemy combatants.

If you want to try people for crimes you have a trial to determine if there is enough evidence to declare them guilty of the crime.

Exactly.

Being an enemy combatant isn't a crime in and of itself.

Neither is being a "suspected" terrorist.

Just because an enemy combatant is also a suspected terrorist doesn't mean they somehow have the right to not be detained, nor are criminal charges required.

As far as I can see the opening post is speaking about "suspected terrorists", not "enemy combatants who are also suspected terrorists".

My stand is still that we cannot and should not hold suspected terrorists detained forever without trial, we have to determine if they actually are terrorists.

Or you could be detained forever.

 

[gumboot]

No, this is not part of the GC. Where did you get this idea from?

It's covered in the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Conventions. Only prisoners of war can be detained as combatants.

You're getting confused between unlawful combatants and lawful combatants who commit war crimes. They're not the same thing.

 

[gumboot]

Both the Bush and Obama administrations disagree with you.

There is no boundary for this conflict. New York City was a battlefield in this conflict.

They can disagree all they want. They're violating international law and committing war crimes. It is absolutely not permitted.

Claiming your fighting a "war on terror" doesn't excuse it. The Laws of War apply strictly to International Armed Conflict, not whatever you feel like labeling a "war". Afghanistan and Iraq are theatres of International Armed Conflict. New York is not.

You want to know why the world is so pissed off at America? It's because you guys parade around promoting the UN and international law, harshly criticising any state that fails to meet some imaginary standard of acceptable behaviour, and then you completely disregard it whenever you feel like it or reinvent the law to suit your desires.

 

[WildCat]

Yes, now. As long as Obama doesn't follow Bush's example in this regard, that is a change for the better, imho.

No, even under Bush since the SCOTUS opinion that a military status hearing wasn't good enough.