Another Stunning Day! - post about E-blog's Shit, Fan, And all that

I have been reading his blog a lot lately. He has some interesting ideas, but I don't think a post this long belongs in his blog. I hope I am not committing some kind of hi-jacking sin by posting it here, but I really have a lot to say about the issue.

First, there is some ambiguity about who is an enemy combatant, or what specifically defines someone as such. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatants included for your convenience ).

• ^ Detention of Enemy Combatants Act (Introduced in House) 109th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 1076 March 3, 2005
(8) The term 'enemy combatant' has historically referred to all of the citizens of a state with which the Nation is at war, and who are members of the armed force of that enemy state. Enemy combatants in the present conflict, however, come from many nations, wear no uniforms, and use unconventional weapons. Enemy combatants in the war on terrorism are not defined by simple, readily apparent criteria, such as citizenship or military uniform. And the power to name a citizen as an 'enemy combatant' is therefore extraordinarily broad. (Emphasis added)
• ^ The current United States Department of Defense definition is "Any person in an armed conflict who could be properly detained under the laws and customs of war."(source DOD dictionary enemy combatant)

and:
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 enemy combatant by using the term 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.
More recently the United States government has passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which contains a definitions for lawful and unlawful enemy combatants.

But notice the "subject to trial by military tribunals" part. This makes the Supreme Court decision iffy in my book. I see nothing there that gives the detainees the right to a court trial or the rights to have charges outlined in a regular court. These people are not POWs. They are detainees. They are being held for the purpose of getting information and for keeping them from creating more problems in the conflict area.

Second: How is this any different from the internment camps we had in the last world war, which was full of our own people just because they had a certain ancestry? Clearly, the government we have is capable of making huge errors each time the security and peace becomes threatened. It is nothing new for the US to leap and then look after they have landed in the poo. Those who are being held at Guantanamo may be enemy agents, or they may be people with a difference of opinion about religion and social order.

Third: why are we holding them in Cuba? Aren't we 'against' Cuba? I could have sworn there is something about Cuba that we don't like…. Wasn't it communism? Isn't that the reason that so many people fled Cuba and why they now cannot go back to see their family members? The base at Guantanamo is ours because of an indefinite lease we gained back in 1902. The base is a result of the Spanish-American War from back in 1898. Cuba maintains that the US base is an unauthorized occupational force on its soil. But we have a signed piece of paper ( the Treaty of Paris that was not nullified by the Vienna Convention of 1969) that gives us the right to do what we want there… It's how we got control over Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Guam. Once again, the US has asserted that "some countries" cannot handle their own affairs without our direct influence. Sounds like we have a superiority complex about some issues if you ask me. The same concepts we had in 1898 are the exact same ideas we are pushing with the current situation in the Middle East.What a mess!

Posted: 1:42 PM, Tuesday, July 1, 2008

<- Last Page | Next Page ->