You hold POWs under the Geneva Conventions – because they are just the other side’s soldiers and not necessarily bad guys so you aren’t punishing them, just keeping them out of the fight.

You prosecute criminals to punish them, with habeas corpus rules to keep your cops (etc) honest and protect yourself from your own cops.

There aren’t any other people you can legitimately hold in custody. Gobbledygook like “unlawful combatant” is just an attempt to avoid accountability.

And the thing to remember is that habeas corpus is what makes all the other rules work. Without habeas corpus, you aren’t a citizen, you are just the guy in the cage. Without habeas corpus, you don’t have the right to show your papers and prove your citizenship, so the rule that habeas corpus does not apply to non-citizens is meaningless – habeas corpus applies to this body here in the cage (that’s what it literally means) or it doesn’t work.

…
Ms. Smith, ‘Unlawful combatants’ are not prisoners of war. Perhaps it was at this point that your thinking was derailed.

Just where did the phrases “unlawful combatants”, “enemy combatants”, “unlawful enemy combatants” and “prisoner of war” come from? And, which are applicable in this GWOT Bush simply declared, without basis in provable fact, effect or law?

… I personally think all you people are naive fools.

Hey, thanks for bringing up our naivete. That reminds me of how George W. Bush is pissing away our country in Iraq and here at home. Do you think George is naive too? Do you support the Constitution or just Dubya?

Frankly, we feel that if you take the oath of office you should uphold the Constitution. Actually, even more than that, if you’re a citizen of America you should uphold the Constitution.

Hell, if you’re a citizen of the world you should be happy to HELP people uphold the US Constitution.

It’s a great document which sets a high bar and all ought to understand it, so we can appreciate what it establishes.

Then called Johnny Isakson (R-Ga) and the staffer read me a letter about the mean men in Guantanmo Bay who want to kill us. I told her the problem is American citizens can also be held indefinitely without access to counsel and that goes against a basic freedom, etc, etc, and he needs to support the constitution, etc. She sounded dubious but would pass my message along.

Almost wasted effort with those two, but you never know.

Hugh @ 216

Actually, I think Christy’s reference to POWs was an afterthought. It is important to remember that no one has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant. Bush’s CSRTs can only make a determination of enemy combatant. This holding is not consistent with the MCA’s requirement of unlawful enemy combatant for trial and has been so found by US military courts in Khadr/Hamdan.

How are these prisoners defined? Persons of interest?

They are detainees until a determination is made. The only legal determinations available are enemy combatant or NLEC no longer enemy combatant (i.e. we got the wrong guy, which most of those held at Guantanamo are). My point above is that neither of these determinations meet the requirements of the MCA for trial.

Reading comprehension is an awfully useful skill to acquire. I’m just saying…

Notice the couple of people trying to debate some points here, and using phrases like “naive fools” to describe us, and our thoughts being “derailed,” and notice the several responses where people politely point out where they are wrong or just not informed.

Not one single bit of name calling back at them. Cool place, huh?

Media where we all actually learn things.

rick @ 207

Ms. Smith, ‘Unlawful combatants’ are not prisoners of war. Perhaps it was at this point that your thinking was derailed.

Actually, I think Christy’s reference to POWs was an afterthought. It is important to remember that no one has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant. Bush’s CSRTs can only make a determination of enemy combatant. This holding is not consistent with the MCA’s requirement of unlawful enemy combatant for trial and has been so found by US military courts in Khadr/Hamdan.

How are these prisoners defined? Persons of interest?