"A citizen, no less than an alien, can be an enemy combatant,"

[Cerridwen]

In case you missed this thread.

After the passage of the Military Commissions Act, many were debating whether or not it would impact citizens of the U.S. The MCA says only 'alien.' Many argued that the definition was so vague it could impact citizens as well.

Just so you know,

<snip>

the administration’s lawyer, David B. Salmons.

Mr. Salmons said the executive branch was entitled to make that judgment in wartime without interference from the courts. "A citizen, no less than an alien, can be an enemy combatant," he added. (emphasis added)

<snip>

from this article

So, now you know. At this time our government asserts that in time of war (see PNAC's endless war ideals) the executive branch of "our" government is entitled to make the judgment that a citizen can be an enemy combatant.


edit typo

[derby378]

1. This is news?

We pretty much figured that out a long time ago. That's what happens when a President thinks he's Caesar.

[Cerridwen]

2. Nope, not news. Evidence. Proof.

Proof and/or evidence that what we 'figured out' was, in fact, what they had in mind and how they would implement it.

[pnwmom]

3. Has anyone lost a PETA friend lately?

From the same article:

"Judge Motz asked a series of hypothetical questions about whether the president could designate someone affiliated with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, as an enemy combatant. “Could the president declare war on PETA?” she asked.

"Mr. Salmons said the hypothetical was unrealistic, but he stopped short of categorically rejecting the idea. “The representative of PETA can sleep well at night,” he said, because the executive branch’s determination of who is an enemy combatant is a careful one."

[Cerridwen]

4. Careful?!

"the executive branch’s determination of who is an enemy combatant is a careful one"

Yeah, this government is careful about how they do things all the time. Especially those things that effect *other people's* lives.

:sarcasm:

[Hosnon]

5. The issue was not whether a citizen could be an enemy combatant.

That was not in dispute.

The issue was what category of individuals were denied the right of habeas corpus. And that, under the language of the MCA, is limited to alien enemy combatants.

Citizens can be enemy combatants but they are not denied the right of habeas corpus under the MCA.

[Cerridwen]

6. I saw both being discussed.

And that's a mighty fine line.

This administration appears to make up the rules to fit as they go along. Instant and retro-active declassifying of information, wiretapping without warrant, 2 seconds of diplomacy justifies invoking the IWR, signing statements, and as noted at the above linked article "the government’s shifting legal tactics" and so on and so forth. Add to that gonzales' recent assertion that "There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there's a prohibition against taking it away" and we have hair-splitting at its most hair-raising.

[Hosnon]

7. I suppose so.

I was heavily involved in the original conversations and a big part of what we discussed was not whether a citizen could be an enemy combatant, but rather, who was in fact denied the right of habeas corpus.

It may indeed be a fine line but the text of the statute does not deny the right of habeas corpus to citizen enemy combatants.

For the record: Habeas should not be denied to anyone.

[Cerridwen]

8. I agree with you.

Habeas should not be denied to anyone.

I think I just have more paranoia in my diet. Too many years of observing and fighting the twists and spins of the opposition. And this particular administration has amped up my paranoia due to their selective reading of texts; such as the Constitution.

So yes, the text (MCA) does not explicitly deny the right of habeas and the Constitution (via gonzales) does not explicitly give the right of habeas. Which wins - the interpreted or the interpreter?

And how scary that this is even a topic of conversation in the U.S. in the year 2007?

[depakid]

9. David B. Salmons should be disbarred

for blatantly violating the oath he took when he became a lawyer.