Reply to Charging the Boston bomber(s) as enemy combatants.

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Charging the Boston bomber(s) as enemy combatants. "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]from Wikipedia:
[quote]^ 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)[/quote]

I understand that Holder eliminated the use of this term.

So, I'm not sure what it means, except it is pretty broad.[/quote]
This I do not undeerstand. What is unconventional weapons? Does not every war at sometime use weapons that are unconventional?
The uniform? Have not most armies ditched this? Or are you supposed to have correct clothing without a button missing in order to not loose your rights.
I suspect the US military has citizens and non citizens. Can that mean they come from many nations?

Are you taking colonial history into account? In some regions the colonial powers drew borders without any regard to what ethnic groups were living there.

How about "international laws" do not apply when we feel like it.
Or has this country descided that international fishing laws apply instead of the Geneva convention. The Gitmo inmates wear orange and are by the coast, so therefore they look like crabs[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics