Padilla NOT an enemy combatant?

[Tribesman]

it might help me if you could provide some examples of usage of the term 'enemy combatant' before the present controversy over the 'War on Terror'?

Try the Nuremburg and other post war war-crimes trails relating to the "commando order" and its extentions , nice stuff if you want a bad example of "illegal enemy combatants" definitions and practices .

It was establish with valid presedence in the trail and execution of German spies caught in the United States conducting an act of Sabatoge.

It was established but not used , they were tried under the Hauge rules wern't they ?
As in ...The power of the President to declare enemy combatants was not used until the aftermath of September 11, 2001.

[Hurin_Rules]

Thanks Redleg, that helps a lot.

It seems by the above definition, then, that American citizens cannot by definition be enemy combatants, doesn't it?

[Redleg]

Thanks Redleg, that helps a lot.

It seems by the above definition, then, that American citizens cannot by definition be enemy combatants, doesn't it?

Hence or is it hince - you have my earlier statement of.

Again criticism of the Bush Adminstration's use of the term and how they are going about the process is valid. However to think that Bush just made up the term is incorrect.

[Tribesman]

An interesting case , has Congress passed a declaration of war on Al-Qaida ?
Has Padilla become a citizen of Al-qaida ????
What is the government of Al-qaida , what uniforms does it wear how does it pay its forces and where is the front line , is it bound by the laws of war and when did it sign any conventions ?
it is currently under review (as of May 2004) and the future of this authority is unknown
I can see why , as it isn't designed for this new "war"
Nice to see that Murphy decided to sit out on that case , probably went to the pub instead

Edit to add It was used to try two captured german agents on American Soil.
What about the other 5 ?

[Redleg]

Edit to add It was used to try two captured german agents on American Soil.
What about the other 5 ?

Not sure - I am only aware of the two. However I wonder if a search of the internet might provide the answer to that question.

[Hurin_Rules]

The 'review' that the enemy combatant matters were under may actually be the case against Padilla (which was only 'under review' because he challenged it in court). Since the Bushies have backed down and transferred him to the civilian justice system, it seems we won't have any official ruling on the constitutionality of the 'enemy combatant' opinions for some time. This was probably the intent of the Bushies in transferring the case, BTW.

[Redleg]

The 'review' that the enemy combatant matters were under may actually be the case against Padilla (which was only 'under review' because he challenged it in court). Since the Bushies have backed down and transferred him to the civilian justice system, it seems we won't have any official ruling on the constitutionality of the 'enemy combatant' opinions for some time. This was probably the intent of the Bushies in transferring the case, BTW.

I refer you to this comment of mine - by the way I believe its a combination of three of them. Minus the third one of course. ( I numbered them for ease of understanding0

1. that when reviewing the specifics of the investigation into his activities they concluded that he did not fit into the category of enemy combatant.

Or 2. it could be that they did not want to have the Supreme Court dicate to them that they were possibily violating the rights of an American Citizen and and have the court throw out any evidence that they have gathered against him.

Or 3. it could be that once again common sense is beginning to come about in the administration over how long you can hold someone without charges or trail.

Or 4. it could be simply that with the election cycle coming very close - and to maintain at least a simple majority in both houses that the adminstration is trying to clear up as much loose bagage as possible so that the republicans running for office might not have to answer why they supported the adminstration in its actions.

Or it could be a combination of all of the above.

[Redleg]

An interesting case , has Congress passed a declaration of war on Al-Qaida ?

The removed themselves from the responsiblity of declaring war with the 1973 War Powers Act and the Authorization of Force - Joint Resolution dated in late 2001 early 2002.

Has Padilla become a citizen of Al-qaida ????

Not a necessary requirment - however one must indeed look at the declared citizenship of the person in question.

What is the government of Al-qaida , what uniforms does it wear how does it pay its forces and where is the front line , is it bound by the laws of war and when did it sign any conventions ?

You have confused yourself, Maybe you should go have a talk with George Bush he might be able to explain it to you.

it is currently under review (as of May 2004) and the future of this authority is unknown
I can see why , as it isn't designed for this new "war"
Nice to see that Murphy decided to sit out on that case , probably went to the pub instead

I refere you back to my intital statement

Again criticism of the Bush Adminstration's use of the term and how they are going about the process is valid. However to think that Bush just made up the term is incorrect.

[Redleg]

it might help me if you could provide some examples of usage of the term 'enemy combatant' before the present controversy over the 'War on Terror'?

Try the Nuremburg and other post war war-crimes trails relating to the "commando order" and its extentions , nice stuff if you want a bad example of "illegal enemy combatants" definitions and practices .

It was establish with valid presedence in the trail and execution of German spies caught in the United States conducting an act of Sabatoge.

It was established but not used , they were tried under the Hauge rules wern't they ?
As in ...The power of the President to declare enemy combatants was not used until the aftermath of September 11, 2001.

The link provides a partial answer to your statement, not perfect but well enough for us non-lawyers to understand.

Just down from the sentence you quoted - Although the power to declare enemy combatants was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1942, it is currently under review (as of May 2004) and the future of this authority is unknown.


Now the assumption on my part is that if it wasn't being used in 1942 - it would not have gone in front of the Supreme Court.