U.S. Government: "U.S. Citizen 'Enemy Combatants' Have No Legal Rights.

[Truth Seeker]

The U.S. Government filed a brief arguing that any person designated an "enemy combatant" by the government has no legal right to legal representation and can be held indefinitely without a hearing and without charges, even if the 'enemy combatant is a U.S. citizen.

Article

Currently, there are two U.S. citizens to whom the U.S. seeks to apply this doctrine. One of them, Yaser Esam Hamdi, is a Saudi captured in Afganistan. He is a U.S. citizen essentially by accident, having been born in the U.S. but having lived his entire life in Saudi Arabia. The second is Jose Padilla. Jose Padilla spent his entire life in the U.S. but converted to Islam while in prison. The U.S. has alleged he was attempting to build a "dirty" bomb but has refused to charge him or present evidence. He was declared an "enemy combatant" and transferred to military custody when a federal judge indicated that the government had better charge him or cut him loose.

John Walker Lindh, while also an "enemy combatant" has been treated like any other criminal defendant.

In my opinion, this is completely outrageous. If the U.S. government want to charge a U.S. citizen with treason, that's fine. However, allowing the government to create a precedent for holding a U.S. citizen indefinitely without access to a court or an attorney is infinitely more dangerous than any number of terrorist organizations. Has the U.S. government already forgotten the Japanese internments?

The U.S. political and judicial system is built on a system of checks and balances. The idea of allowing the government to simply declare some particular person beyond that bounds of those protections is deeply chilling. What's worse, the government's theory is that the military has this authority.

"The court may not second-guess the military's enemy combatant determination. Going beyond that determination would require the courts to enter an area in which they have no competence, much less institutional expertise, intrude upon the Constitutional prerogative of the Commander in Chief . . . and possibly create 'a conflict between judicial and military opinion highly comforting to enemies of the United States,' " the brief said, citing a 1950 Supreme Court ruling.

I know it's incredibly trite to say, "if we allow X, the terrorists have already won." But if one attack results in the short-circuiting of the entire system of constitutional protections in the U.S., perhaps they have.

[Colinito67]

Originally posted by Truth Seeker
.
I know it's incredibly trite to say, "if we allow X, the terrorists have already won." But if one attack results in the short-circuiting of the entire system of constitutional protections in the U.S., perhaps they have.

Good post. I definitely agree. I'd say we lose whenever our constitutional rights are infringed upon. If the US is so confident that these people are "combatants," I do not see the problem in allowing them to have representation and have a fair and speedy trial. If you have a good case, why not go to trial and get him behind bars? If you don't have a good case, why have you arrested him/them?

colin

[msmith537]

Just to play devils advocate, what happens if one of these "enemy combatants" is released for lack of evidence and then denonates a nuclear bomb in downtown Chicago?

I am not an expert on all things Ashcroft. But one thing he said made sense. Our legal system is designed to apprehend and prosecute people AFTER they commit a crime. It isn't designed to deal with suicidal criminals delivering weapons of mass destruction.

[Max Harvey]

It shouldn't matter if you're accused of killing every single person on earth. If you're a U.S. citizen, you should get a trial, period.

It's very frustrating to say these things nowadays, with a lot of hypocritical "patriots" accusing those who do say them of treason. How demanding that the Constitution be followed to the letter is treasonous is beyond me.

I hate to sound paranoid, but I honestly think this could be the first step in the Bush administration chipping away at the rights of the accused. What can stop them from declaring that, say, robbing a bank is an act of terrorism, the people arrested are therefore "military combatants", and since precedent has been set with the Padilla case, they can toss them in a cell somewhere and lose the key without that tedious business of "trials" and "witnesses" and "juries"?

[Tedster]

Terrorists have absolutely no rights whatsoever under any law, US or international. Treason is hard to prove, what is more likely (Rosenburgs were executed for Espionage, not Treason) that a lesser charge that will 'stick' is used. It's also very prudent to keep these jokers out of the "normal" judicial system as it has proved time and again ineffective and very "leaky" from a national security standpoint. Crooked lawyers don't help, either. Treating the first WTC bombing as criminal matter is what got us into this mess in the first place.

Frankly I don't see what the problem is. As an enemy combatant, they could/should be shot on the spot. Being locked up, even indefinitely, is probably superior than that. They have intelligence value, so we are keeping them alive at least. All the human "rights" people (strangely silent on 9/12, what about the poor people who were roasted in their offices, only to find relief by jumping from 90 stories? I watched this live on TV, it took around 8 to 10 seconds of free falling)

FDR and then governor Earl Warren of California are largely responsible for the japanese internment. Post 9/11 you should be able to figure out why they did that. No, it wasn't "right" but it sure was tactically sound. Would that we had "liberals" with balls like that today, sadly they are extinct.

[minty green]

Just to play devil's advocate, I have it on good authority that msmith537 is planning to detonate a nuclear bomb in downtown Chicago. Since I have now informed our Infallible Leaders of this fact, he has been arrested and is now to be imprisoned indefinitely. No evidence of his crime can be revealed, and no other entity may interfere with his perpetual detention.

God, how I detest this administration.

[glee]

Originally posted by Tedster
Terrorists have absolutely no rights whatsoever under any law, US or international.

Us silly Europeans, spending years negotiating a trial for the Lockerbie bombers when we could have asked you for a simple legal precedent.

Originally posted by Tedster
It's also very prudent to keep these jokers out of the "normal" judicial system as it has proved time and again ineffective and very "leaky" from a national security standpoint.

Yes, fancy letting all those innocent people go free. Much safer to lock them up.

Originally posted by Tedster
Treating the first WTC bombing as a criminal matter is what got us into this mess in the first place.

I expect you were one of those who called for Muslims to be punished for that outrage. Then the judicial system you despise showed it was a white American...

Originally posted by Tedster
Frankly I don't see what the problem is. As an enemy combatant, they could/should be shot on the spot.

I suppose that enemies of the US who define American civilians as enemy combatants could benefit from this well-thought out doctrine of yours. :wally

[Max Harvey]

Originally posted by Tedster
FDR and then governor Earl Warren of California are largely responsible for the japanese internment. Post 9/11 you should be able to figure out why they did that. No, it wasn't "right" but it sure was tactically sound. Would that we had "liberals" with balls like that today, sadly they are extinct.

Tell me about it. Everybody knows all those children with Japanese grandparents were planning to infiltrate U.S. bases while wearing their Li'l Kamakaze^TM Dynamite Kits.

Do you think we should have locked up every militia member after Timothy McVeigh was arrested? Better safe than sorry, right?

[London_Calling]

Originally posted by msmith537
I am not an expert on all things Ashcroft. But one thing he said made sense. Our legal system is designed to apprehend and prosecute people AFTER they commit a crime. It isn't designed to deal with suicidal criminals delivering weapons of mass destruction.

Ever heard of the criminal offence of Conspiracy ? Not always easy to prove but it's better than the thought police.

[pldennison]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tedster
Treating the first WTC bombing as a criminal matter is what got us into this mess in the first place.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I expect you were one of those who called for Muslims to be punished for that outrage. Then the judicial system you despise showed it was a white American...

Um, no. You're thinking of Oklahama City.

[Truth Seeker]

Minty, Thank goodness you caught him in time!

mssmith537 Two points.

1) If there is a complete "lack of evidence," he shouldn't have been arrested in the first place. A "lack of evidence" means that the U.S. government does not have a good reason to believe that he is actually a terrorist. If the U.S. government does not have a good reason to believe someone is a terrorist, then it would be monstrous to keep him or her locked up just because some military officer or civilian prosecutor has a "hunch." The more troubling case is where the government does have evidence but need to protect their sources, e.g. an agent inside a terrorist organization. This, however, shouldn't be that novel of a situation. There are ways to address the government's concerns short of denying the accused (who is innocent until proven guilty -- remember that?) even the barest hint of due process.

2) Just because the government can't hold someone incommunicado idefinitely without a hearing doesn't mean the alternative is to do nothing. If the government is convinced someone is a terrorist, follow them around, gather evidence, investigate.

[wring]

let's all remember when we all 'knew' Richard Jewell was the Olympic bomber, then the FBI ended up having to publically admit, well, no, he wasn't.

not to mention people who've had criminal trials, found guilty and have had their convictions overturned 'cause they were actually innocent (reference the Innocence project).

So, no, I'm really not at all comfortable about one branch of our government deciding that the Constitution and Bill of Rights can be tossed out when they 'know' some one is a bad guy.

[London_Calling]

Originally posted by Truth Seeker
2) Just because the government can't hold someone incommunicado idefinitely without a hearing doesn't mean the alternative is to do nothing. If the government is convinced someone is a terrorist, follow them around, gather evidence, investigate.

And there lies the rub. How does an Intelligence community at (turf) war with itself say to a politician; "Actually, in our experience it would be a much better thing for the country if we followed this guy around for awhile in order to try and discover who he may hook up with. And maybe even gather a little evidence." when it's politically expedient to arrest the individual the moment they return to the US. Bush had them over a barrel because of the turf war.

That notwithstanding, party political imperatives have no place in pragmatic Intelligence matters. IMHO, Bush interfered with operational standard practice for his own short-term ends and that, ultimately, may not be in the national interest.

[msmith537]

London_Calling - There are obviously laws already on the books against planning crimes. I'm talking about the way our law enforcement agencies investigate and solve crimes and punish criminals. It doesn't do any good to figure out who hijacked the airplanes after they crashed into their targets. Figure out a way to find out who the criminals are before they commit the crimes without violating anyones rights and we'll all be happy.

Truth Seeker - 2) As you probably know, the CIA was following two of the suspected 9/11 terrorists before 9/11. We definitely two things 1) better cooperation between the law enforcement and intel agencies and 2) a better way to sift through all that intel data (I heard a typical listening post receives 2 million peices of data an HOUR).

That said, what would we be able to do to the suspected terrorists under existing law had we picked them up?

[wring]

deport them as being undesireable aliens.

[minty green]

No need to deport, wring. Just pick 'em up, hold 'em on their myriad visa violations, investigate the plot, and charge 'em with conspiracy to do a whole host of things that would result in them never again seeeing the outside of a SuperMax detention facility.

[London_Calling]

Originally posted by msmith537
London_Calling - There are obviously laws already on the books against planning crimes. I'm talking about the way our law enforcement agencies investigate and solve crimes and punish criminals. It doesn't do any good to figure out who hijacked the airplanes after they crashed into their targets. Figure out a way to find out who the criminals are before they commit the crimes without violating anyones rights and we'll all be happy.

IMHO, the first thing you do is keep politicians the hell out of Intelligence matters.

Can you imagine how all this very public headless chicken stuff looks to the terrorists ?

[minty green]

I imagine it looks like the inside of a cave or the closet of a crappy apartment in Jalalabad. Open democracy may look messy to us, but it's damn well effective against these losers.

[jayjay]

Originally posted by wring
deport them as being undesireable aliens.

How does one deport a U.S. citizen, like the men in the OP? Not a hostile question, just confused.

jayjay

[wring]

jayjay that response was in reply to the posting about "gee, we had certain of those hijackers under watch/whatever before 9/11, what could we have done..." to which my answer is keep 'em out of the country, but of course, minty goes one better.

WRT those who are citizens, charge 'em w/a crime or let them go. IT's done every single day in this country. If you don't have evidence sufficient to hold them in custody (keeping in mind that the threashold for being held for trial is substantially less than it is for conviction), you must not detain them. THE FF thought that they protected our citizens from the government detaining w/o trial.

[jayjay]

wring, gotcha. I was just confused about the subject of the deportation.

I agree with the folks who are a bit nervous about the "have no rights" thing...erode, erode, erode...

jayjay

[Duckster]

Originally posted by Tedster
Frankly I don't see what the problem is. As an enemy combatant, they could/should be shot on the spot. Being locked up, even indefinitely, is probably superior than that. They have intelligence value, so we are keeping them alive at least. All the human "rights" people (strangely silent on 9/12, what about the poor people who were roasted in their offices, only to find relief by jumping from 90 stories? I watched this live on TV, it took around 8 to 10 seconds of free falling)

So you have no qalms that an American citizen (by birth none the less) is now locked up in his own country without warrant, arrest, etc.? And that he will be held indefinitely without trial, never having been charged, let alone convicted, of breaking any law pertaining to his current incarceration?

Have you ever read the US Constitution?

FDR and then governor Earl Warren of California are largely responsible for the japanese internment. Post 9/11 you should be able to figure out why they did that. No, it wasn't "right" but it sure was tactically sound. Would that we had "liberals" with balls like that today, sadly they are extinct.

Bear in mind that FDR's Executive Order ordering the internment of Japanese-Americans was later upheld by the US Supreme Court. To my knowledge, that court decision has yet to be reversed.

I am not saying I am in agreement with what FDR did, nor the Court's decision, but there is a difference between one's moral opinion and the still existing legal decision on this issue.

Besides, FDR's EO restricted US citizens. The current war on terrorism is dealing with non-US citizens, notwithstanding Jose Padilla in this thread, who seek not just to commit terrorism against the USA, but attack and ultimately destroy the USA as a country, a people and as a culture.

As much as I loathe terrorists, and support the Constitution, American citizens still have rights in their own country. However, I am no so sure that non-US citizens committing terrorism against the USA, bent on attacking and ultimately destroying the USA as a country, a people and as a culture be accorded the same rights as US citizens.

[Apos]

----It shouldn't matter if you're accused of killing every single person on earth. If you're a U.S. citizen, you should get a trial, period.----

And then, when that fails, you should sue for damages because the government wasn't able to find a jury of your peers, seeing as they're all dead.

[sailor]

So the government can deprive you of life, limb or liberty without due process of law if you may be a terrorist and the government gets to decide who may be a terrorist and needs not explain it or justify it to anyone? Wow. The Soviets and the Chinese were so far ahead of us.

I suppose the military should also take matters into their own hands and not follow lawful orders if they believe they are not for the good of the country. Maybe they *should* have staged a coup and installed Gore in the White House? The ends would justify it?

Where do you stop? When you have a country like Afghanistan where the rule of law comes out of an AK47?

[Czarcasm]

If he is to be held until this "war" on terror is over, then we know exactly how long he'll be held without trial.
Forever.

[Apos]

---Bear in mind that FDR's Executive Order ordering the internment of Japanese-Americans was later upheld by the US Supreme Court. To my knowledge, that court decision has yet to be reversed.---

A San Fran federal judge overturned Korematsu's conviction, and his decision was uncontested. The U.S. Government has apologized for the dententions, awarded medals to victims, and even paid some civil restitution.

---I am not saying I am in agreement with what FDR did, nor the Court's decision, but there is a difference between one's moral opinion and the still existing legal decision on this issue.---

Only once in my knowledge has the Court ever violated its own code of ethics in conferring with the executive branch on what its decision should be. Korematsu was that case. Both the majority and dissenting opinions bend the law over backwards to reach their desired results: the majority to defend the honor of the U.S. military in allowing nutty General Pickering to put his proud racist beliefs into action, and the dissenters to defend principles, without much legal backup.

The Korematsu case was a tragic and extremely upseting travesty. I cannot think of it without it bringing tears to my eyes.

Fred Korematsu so desperately just wanted to be an American that he went to a "plastic surgeon" to try and get English features. When he didn't have enough money to pay, the surgeon offered to "cut you up real good so it won't make much difference." Fred's face has been horribly scarred since, and this comically tragic attempt to fit in did him no good: he was still thrown into a camp. He fought for his case, but when the SC threw it back in his face, he gave up completely. His own grandchildren never learned who he was until they learned about his case in school and made the connection to their own names.

But was the case decided incorrectly, on the law? I don't know. That's one reason I can't sleep soundly at night, among others.

[capacitor]

There will be those who say that since we were born, Black people have always been treated like 'enemy combatants'. That's why we have to fight for our rights that were supposed to be granted by the Constitution with eternal vigilance. Witness what happened in Florida as an example

Now White America whose sons get caught in terrorist propaganda will know how it feels. Great, now militancy will sharply rise because of the legal limbo that has been created.

[Duckster]

Apos thanks for the update.

However, there is a difference between a federal judge overturning the conviction of the case, and the US Supreme Court upholding the EO the original arrest/conviction/overturning rests. Only the SC can reverse an earlier decision it makes. Unless someone can find the SC case reversing the initial decision, the EO is still considered legal, and the internment of Japanese-Americans is still legally upheld.

Additional clarifications:

1) On February 19, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, deciding that no one of Japanese ancestry could live on the west coast of the United States, while people of Italian and German ancestry could remain.

2) In 1980, the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians was established by Congress. This commission reviewed the impact of Executive Order 9066 on Japanese-Americans and determined that they were the victims of discrimination by the Federal government.

3) On August 10, 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. The Act was passed by Congress to provide a Presidential apology and symbolic payment of $20,000.00 to the internees, evacuees, and persons of Japanese ancestry who lost liberty or property because of discriminatory action by the Federal government during World War II. The Act also created the Civil Liberties Public Education Fund to help teach children and the public about the internment period.

Source: http://www.usdoj.gov/kidspage/crt/redress.htm

Notice that 1980 Commission's finding has no force of law in the context of overturning the original SC decision. With no disrespect here, but it was a feel good decision based upon the hue and cry at the time. There was/still is no legal obligation to pay reparations to Japanese-Americans.

Whether we like it or not, the SC decision still stands and could very well be used by the Bush Administration as a basis to incarcerate US citizens in their own country who have broken no law.

That we haven't even brought up any relevance of the dangerous USA Patriot Act may show we haven't even explored the tip of the slippy slope iceberg on this one.

[Apos]

---Unless someone can find the SC case reversing the initial decision, the EO is still considered legal, and the internment of Japanese-Americans is still legally upheld.---

Yet, the convictions got thrown out, including the one that MADE the SC case. The SC is the ruling court, but I'd say the ruling precedent is now with the federal courts that nixed those convictions. If the SC considered this sort of case again, it could hardly ignore the weight of those decisions.

[pldennison]

IMHO, the first thing you do is keep politicians the hell out of Intelligence matters.

Heavens to Murgatroyd! Can you be more specific? Surely you aren't advocating a completely independent intelligence apparatus--that can only make things worse. At the end of the day, somebody who's directly answerable to the public has to be in charge.

[msmith537]

Originally posted by capacitor
There will be those who say that since we were born, Black people have always been treated like 'enemy combatants'. That's why we have to fight for our rights that were supposed to be granted by the Constitution with eternal vigilance. Witness what happened in Florida as an example

Now White America whose sons get caught in terrorist propaganda will know how it feels. Great, now militancy will sharply rise because of the legal limbo that has been created. [/b]

Yeah!! Kill Whitey!!!


Just a point of clarification:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Jun19.html

The document signals the government's intent to assert broad presidential authority in the cases of terrorist suspects apprehended overseas.

"That is true with respect to enemy combatants who are captured and detained on the battlefield in a foreign land; enemy combatants who are captured overseas and brought to the United States for detention . . . and enemy combatants who are captured and detained in this country."

I don't have a problem with prisoners being given enemy combatant status overseas. That's the way its always been done in previous wars. I would like to see a better definition of what is considered an "enemy combatant" on US soil, and how that it not already covered by existing laws on espionage, treason, etc.

[Bricker]

Originally posted by Apos
---Unless someone can find the SC case reversing the initial decision, the EO is still considered legal, and the internment of Japanese-Americans is still legally upheld.---

Yet, the convictions got thrown out, including the one that MADE the SC case. The SC is the ruling court, but I'd say the ruling precedent is now with the federal courts that nixed those convictions. If the SC considered this sort of case again, it could hardly ignore the weight of those decisions.

You would?

What is it you mean by "ruling precedent"? Are you suggesting that a federal district judge can make "ruling precdent"?

- Rick

[nahtanoj]

When I heard that we had captured and detained Al Qaeda members, I was hoping that we would show to all the world just how much we valued the principles which we claim our country stands for. I was hoping that we would hold open trials and hearings to demostrate justice. I was quickly disillusioned. And now this. American citizens denied legal counsel and a trial by peers. Precedent for unjustified arrests, jail time without proof of crime.

Franklin did say it best:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I am unsure whether I wish to remain an American citizen. Do you think England would take me, glee? Or perhaps I should run to Canada.

I hearby declare myself the Sovereign Nation of Jon, with myself as the ambassador to the world.

nahtanoj

[sailor]

>> I don't have a problem with prisoners being given enemy combatant status overseas.

Wait a minute! They were called "prisoners of war" and had certain rights. The whole "illegal enemy combatant" thing is a (shameful and disgusting) way to get around all legality and say "we have him and we'll do whatever we fucking please with him". By doing this the US is sinking to the level of Saddam Hussein. Where did the rule of law go?

[Monty]

sailor: You need to quit picking and choosing what parts of the Geneva Convention you're willing to have the government follow. "Illegal Enemy Combatants" are a class of combatants in that convention, IIRC.

[Apos]

---What is it you mean by "ruling precedent"? Are you suggesting that a federal district judge can make "ruling precdent"?---

That's probably a poor way to put it, but what I meant is that the Court would have to take seriously the experience of the aftermath of Korematsu and what happened with the various convictions they had declared were kosher. Remember that the original majority decision was, if it was based on good law at all, based on the idea that the state had a compelling interest for arresting a RACE. Do you really think that the same logic would make sense to be argued by the court today, in light of the huge change in attitude on such matters, and the overturning of the related convictions?

[sailor]

Monty, you are right but the rule of law means they should be accorded whatever status they objectively fall into and not just classified at the discretion of the government for their own ends and without due process. If someone is objectively a prisoner of war, then classifying him as something else just to deny him his rights is a travesty and immoral. The whole point of what this administration has been trying to do from the beginning is to deny people their rights and I find that sickening.

[minty green]

What the Geneva Convention has to say on this matter is essentially irrelevant, [b]Monty[b]. GC rights are not in lieu of all other rights under the law. The question is whether these two guys--both American citizens, and both located on American soil and held by the American government--are entitled to due process of law under the American Constitution. Whatever rights they have under the GC are cumulative, not exclusive.

[rjung]

Originally posted by Tedster
Terrorists have absolutely no rights whatsoever under any law, US or international.

Just to join in the inevitable pile-on of this eye-rolling message of yours, but what about American citizens who are accused of being terrorists, but whose guilt is not yet proven?

That whirring sound you hear is this Administration putting the Bill of Rights through the shredder...

[erislover]

What we need now is solid gun control.

[xenophon41]

Bad erl!

[erislover]

[Henry B]

I am new at this site. And very astonished!

“held indefinitely without a hearing and without charges”
“I like that!” says Adolf and Josef from their graves.

“Our legal system is designed to apprehend and prosecute people AFTER they commit a crime.”
“It shouldn't matter if you're accused of killing every single person on earth. If you're a U.S. citizen, you should get a trial, period.”
(I would like to have the words “U.S. citizen” written “human”).
Here I hear Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and others that I admire.

"Frankly I don't see what the problem is. As an enemy combatant, they could/should be shot on the spot.”
I see with my minds eye how Adolf and Josef is drinking to this.

“I have it on good authority that msmith537 is planning to detonate a nuclear bomb in downtown Chicago. Since I have now informed our Infallible Leaders of this fact, he has been arrested and is now to be imprisoned indefinitely.”
This is what happened in Adolf-country and was made to a system in Josef-country.
Is this what You wish????

I have never believed that “the Adolf-thing” nor “the Josef-thing” could happened ever again among civilized people. I am sorry to say: Now I believe and it scares the shit out of me.

I am very glad I found Your site and I am very sad I find a site like this. Go figure...
Anyhow, now You have to endure even me.
Oh, whatta bunch we will make.

[Monty]

sailor: You continue to ignore the Convention. Said Convention stipulates who constitutes a lawful armed force and who constitutes unlawful combatants.

[minty green]

Monty: You continue to ignore the Constitution. Said Constitution says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Please address why the heck you think the Geneva Convention overrides the United States Constitution.

And oh yeah, the GC says fuck-all nothing about illegal enemy combatants or anything similar to your purported category. Just so you're clear.

[Monty]

minty:

You can't be serious! I'm not about to ignore the Constitution. The way I understand it, GITMO's not part of the United States--it's a chunk of land in Cuba. The US Constitution doesn't apply to the prisoners held there because they're not in the United States.

IIRC, the Geneva Convention actually does address classes of combatants.

[Monty]

And evidently, I do recall correctly:

From Geneva Convention III:

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Also from the same source:

Prisoners of war shall retain the full civil capacity which they enjoyed at the time of their capture. The Detaining Power may not restrict the exercise, either within or without its own territory, of the rights such capacity confers except in so far as the captivity requires.

Since the detainees in GITMO did not have any enjoyment of the US Constitution prior to their capture and they are not on US soil, they are not being denied anything.

[Truth Seeker]

Just to keep this on track, the issue in the OP isn't what rights "illegal combatants" should have. The issue is whether the U.S. government can cancel a U.S. citizen's constitutional rights with the stroke of a pen simply by declaring someone to be an "illegal combatant."

[Guinastasia]

Tedster, apparently you've never heard of the phrase, "Innocent until proven guilty."

No, terrorists do not deserve a thing. However, until we know beyond a reasonable doubt that they are terrorists, they have rights.

Don't like it? Too bad. You could always move to say, Saudi Arabia. I think there the laws are more to your liking.

[minty green]

Monty, this issue has absolutely nothing to do with Gitmo. These are American citizens who are detained, without even a pretense of due process, in America.

You may also recall that I argued quite vigorously with certain posters who thought the Geneva Convention applied to the detainees in Guantanamo. It does not. The threads aren't here any longer, but they're archived on boardreader.com--just do a search on my name and Geneva Convention, and they'll pop right up.

Finally, your citation to Article 4 fails to address the issue of illegal enemy combatants, or whatever you want to call them. Article 4 simply establishes the categories of persons who are entitled to prisoner of war status. Article 4 and the rest of the Convetion are completely silent on the treatment of people who are not prisoners of war. Silence in the Geneva Convention does not override all other applicable law--most especially not the Constitution of the United States.