On 21/10/2006, at 8:10 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
As I stated in my correspondence with Rob in this thread, this
pretty well
sets the boundaries. Americans who fight overseas against US
soldiers can
be treated like the other soldiers. American citizens who are not so
engaged cannot, even if they are declared unlawful enemy combatants.
(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully
and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its
co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a
person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces; or
(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of
the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an
unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or
another competent tribunal established under the authority of the
President or the Secretary of Defense.
This would seem to exclude citizens. However, it actually doesn't,
because if you are declared a UEC because you have been deemed to
have provided material support to terrorists (say you'd rented an
apartment to the 9/11 hijackers), then you are one until you can
challenge it in a court... oh. Now you can't, until the Government
says you can.
What I don't get is how preventing a person from exercising their
right to a hearing in court (a *human right*, not an American one)
helps anything at all.
What I also don't get is how *any* erosion of the Bill of Rights
helps make Americans "safer".
But basically, it seems to be a difference in perspective, and in the
amount of trust one places in the government. You see it as only
one [or
two] such case in the last 5 years, I see it as one case when they
didn't have the authority to do so, and wonder what they will do now
when they *do* have the authority to do so.
The law has not changed the authority. One subtlety of US law that
you
might not be familiar with is the use of precedence to define law.
It's the same in the UK (in fact more so, as there is no written
constitution) and many other places. It's not a subtlety, it's a
feature of most jurisprudence I'm aware of, and I'm sure someone as
politically savvy as Ritu is perfectly aware of it.
Charlie
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
