Anonymous wrote:from Wikipedia:

^ 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)

I understand that Holder eliminated the use of this term.

So, I'm not sure what it means, except it is pretty broad.

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

Anonymous wrote:Isn't enemy combatant same as prisoner of war?
And gitmo an institution about to be closed?
And would the Geneva convention apply to him?

No, an enemy combatant is specifically NOT entitled to benefits accorded to prisoners of war.
Since the US has declared the war on terrorism to entitle them to use wartime powers, the Geneva convention applies to that situation.
Guantanamo Bay is slated to be closed, but no efforts have been made to proceed because they cannot determine what should be done with the enemy combatants that are currently housed there. They are not supposed to be brought into the US proper and they cannot be released. Gitmo is a no man's land and until they can resolve what to do about the internees there they can't close the place.

from Wikipedia:

^ 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)

I understand that Holder eliminated the use of this term.

So, I'm not sure what it means, except it is pretty broad.

OP here

I didnt think my question was that difficult.

some of you are confirming my point that the concern here is the muslim connection.

it seems that the guys were muslim. that being the case, if they are found to have no ties to any international groups (and even if they do), the challenge of denying them rights of US citizens to put them on trial as enemy combatants gets slippery.

you open the door for any act to be viewed through that lens even if there is no muslim connection.

again, i feel the muslim thing is whats driving this desire, hence why i brought up the scenario about the auroa shooter being muslim

Isn't enemy combatant same as prisoner of war?
And gitmo an institution about to be closed?
And would the Geneva convention apply to him?

not necessarily.

Isn't enemy combatant same as prisoner of war?
And gitmo an institution about to be closed?
And would the Geneva convention apply to him?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should we have tried McVeigh as an enemy combatant? He did the same thing, except that he killed more people.

This is the US. We have one set of laws for everybody. That's the point.

If you cannot understand the difference between, for example, the Saudi Arabian jihadist terrorists involved in Sept. 11th versus Timothy McVeigh, then you are clearly stupid or incredibly uninformed or have some mental problem, I don't know.

Not the PP but in that person's defense, I thought we were discussing whether the Boston bomber should be tried as enemy combatants - not the Saudi Arabian jihadist terrorists...

Is it clear that this guy is that different from Timothy McVeigh? In what way? I haven't seen any evidence that he has ever been overseas and there has been no evidence of international connections. McVeigh was upset with the government because of its handling of Waco, this guy says he and his brother were upset with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He seems more like McVeigh than the jihadist terrorists to me.

The tim McVeigh argument is a moot point because

1) He isn't part of an international terrorist organization that declared war on the US
2) The enemy combatant law was passed after his who ordeal

It isn't clear that DT is an international terrorist either. But I assume that will all come out over time. And we were making a comparison for theoretical reasons so when the law was passed doesn't really matter.

Once again:
The older brother was a concern. He spent six months in Russia last year. To me, that indicates the strong possibility of a foreign connection.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should we have tried McVeigh as an enemy combatant? He did the same thing, except that he killed more people.

This is the US. We have one set of laws for everybody. That's the point.

If you cannot understand the difference between, for example, the Saudi Arabian jihadist terrorists involved in Sept. 11th versus Timothy McVeigh, then you are clearly stupid or incredibly uninformed or have some mental problem, I don't know.

Not the PP but in that person's defense, I thought we were discussing whether the Boston bomber should be tried as enemy combatants - not the Saudi Arabian jihadist terrorists...

Is it clear that this guy is that different from Timothy McVeigh? In what way? I haven't seen any evidence that he has ever been overseas and there has been no evidence of international connections. McVeigh was upset with the government because of its handling of Waco, this guy says he and his brother were upset with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He seems more like McVeigh than the jihadist terrorists to me.

The tim McVeigh argument is a moot point because

1) He isn't part of an international terrorist organization that declared war on the US
2) The enemy combatant law was passed after his who ordeal

The desire to try them as enemy combatants means that they do not have to observe certain rights granted to citizens. Enemy combatants are not granted protections that were established by the Geneva Convention and are not guaranteed certain rights, such as the right to due process, the right to a speedy trail, etc. This status gives the government far wider leeway in handling, questioning/interrogating, and otherwise abusing rights that are guaranteed to citizens.

It is highly questionable whether US citizens can be denied their rights of citizenship based on their participation in a foreign terrorist group. The Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that such captives could not be denied their access to the US Federal Court system, and the Obama administration has abandoned the use of the term enemy combatant, but there are still those who want to bypass these Constitutional rights. This was the point in not reading Dzokhat Tsarnaev his Miranda rights when they arrested him. They hoped that they could get him declared an enemy combatant before the courts opened up on Monday, but when the courts opened on Monday, they were required to charge him with a crime and read him his Miranda rights. Very shady authoritarian rule here. He's a citizen and should be entitled to his Constitutional rights.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should we have tried McVeigh as an enemy combatant? He did the same thing, except that he killed more people.

This is the US. We have one set of laws for everybody. That's the point.

If you cannot understand the difference between, for example, the Saudi Arabian jihadist terrorists involved in Sept. 11th versus Timothy McVeigh, then you are clearly stupid or incredibly uninformed or have some mental problem, I don't know.

Not the PP but in that person's defense, I thought we were discussing whether the Boston bomber should be tried as enemy combatants - not the Saudi Arabian jihadist terrorists...

Is it clear that this guy is that different from Timothy McVeigh? In what way? I haven't seen any evidence that he has ever been overseas and there has been no evidence of international connections. McVeigh was upset with the government because of its handling of Waco, this guy says he and his brother were upset with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He seems more like McVeigh than the jihadist terrorists to me.

Anonymous wrote:Should we have tried McVeigh as an enemy combatant? He did the same thing, except that he killed more people.

This is the US. We have one set of laws for everybody. That's the point.

If you cannot understand the difference between, for example, the Saudi Arabian jihadist terrorists involved in Sept. 11th versus Timothy McVeigh, then you are clearly stupid or incredibly uninformed or have some mental problem, I don't know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, but there was definitely a foreign connection on the part of his co-conspirator.

Really? Because the FSB said they have no evidence that he talked to any actual terrorist.

They may not have had concrete evidence. But they obviously knew enough to say, "Yo, FBI. Here's the guy headed your way. He's up to no good, we think. Nothing solid to hold him, but something's off. Why don't you take a look at him? I mean, a real close look."

No, what they said was that he attended a Salafi mosque. Most people at that mosque are peaceful people. In any case, the WSJ got the story wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, but there was definitely a foreign connection on the part of his co-conspirator.

Really? Because the FSB said they have no evidence that he talked to any actual terrorist.

They may not have had concrete evidence. But they obviously knew enough to say, "Yo, FBI. Here's the guy headed your way. He's up to no good, we think. Nothing solid to hold him, but something's off. Why don't you take a look at him? I mean, a real close look."

In addition, the Boston Globe is reporting that Russia warned the FBI repeatedly.