Re the 3 Ohio arrests, for training to attack us In IRAQ. Is THIS why?...

[Brotherjohn]

... They can be classified as "enemy combatants", and therefore withheld indefinitely without legal access.

I seem to recall a story recently (NPR) that related the latest court decision as clarifying that for someone to be classified as an "enemy combatant", they needed to be engaged in hostilities with us on the field of battle. That raised the bar. This (rather ludicrous) claim alleges that they were at least planning to do this.

I mean, I know the admin has held many people indefinitely without legal access "just because". But didn't they lose a court case recently that more specifically defined "enemy combatant"?

Anyone else know more about this?

[mom cat]

1. Do you have a link regarding the issue?

[Brotherjohn]

2. Not exactly. That's kind of what I'm asking. But here's a Wikipedia...

... article referencing Jose Padilla. I think it had something to do with that case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_%28alleged_terrorist%29

Maybe it's Padilla's pending case I'm thinking of, and maybe he's claiming that you have to be a combatant on the battlefield (which he is not) in order to be classified as an "enemy combatant" (actually a Bush term, apparently... but more properly "unlawful combatant" accdg. to the Geneva Convention?).

The Bush administration actually asked that he be transferred to a U.S. civilian prison, but I think it was some kind of compromise while the case is pending.

Perhaps they're hedging their bets, pinning planned attacks in Iraq on these 3, so they can lock them away and throw away the key?

[uppityperson]

3. I don't know but this was my first thought also.

Does an "enemy combatant" have to be "on the field" in another country, or does the USA work also?