Well, that’s irrelevant, but do you even have a cite for that?
The definition of unlawful enemy combatant is much broader than that. I quoted it for you upthread.
Yes, you did. If you can point to a particular portion of the definition which could be applied to either individual, feel free.
Since about 2/3 of the verbiage applies to him, I’m not sure why it’s so hard to see.
“including a person who is part of the Taliban, al-Qaida, or associated forces”
but the kicker is:
“a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.”
They can simply declare him to be one.
The AUMF allows the president to decide who’s a terrorist and who’s not, as poor a decision as allowing that may be. In any case, it doesn’t demand military tribunals, it just allows for them at the president’s discretion. Since Obama’s not doing anything he’s not allowed to do the Republicans have no case. I’m pretty sure Obama also abolished the designation ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ upon taking office too, so the Bush-era definition is moot.
In any case, military tribunals are not required. They’re allowed, but not required. Personally I think all the ballyhoo is just because Obama’s not a Republican. It’s the driving force behind most of the vitriol flung his way.
It doesn’t matter if the “including” part applies to him if the main clause of the sentence does not.
Sure, they could simply declare him an unlawful combatant, but they haven’t. You don’t think the ability to withdraw a suspect’s rights at will might just be a little unconstitutional?
Yep. He should go to civilian court.
It is more because the Right is primarily composed of bloodthirsty sadists. Even when you point out the possibility or torturing or killing innocent people, they don’t care. This is not constrained to just terrorism; you see the same when in comes to crime in general, the death penalty, wars or anything else that involves hurting or killing people. They either try to pretend that it’s impossible for the innocent to end up victims, or say that the suffering and death of innocents is “worth it”.
They just plain enjoy hurting, torturing and killing people - or having the government do the job for them - and are simply looking for an excuse to indulge themselves.
I definitely see the team mentality, but not just on the right. There seems to be this idea that it’s okay to refer to “the other team” as a monolithic entity, and to denounce them all in one breath. No matter how justified you think it is, if someone has an argument, impugning their character does not actually counter their argument.
As far as I can tell, the main argument for trying this guy in military court is that he is claiming to be a part of an organization that the military is fighting. This means that, while he attacked civilians, he was likely trying to accomplish a military goal. If so, he would not be acting as a civilian, but as a member of a military group. Therefore, he should be tried under military jurisdiction.
I’m sure there are tons of holes in that. But that’s how I understand the argument.
I totally agree that the “team theory” is a two way street. It’s the Red Team vs. the Blue Team. You’ve gotta be on one team or the other. Binary. If you’ve been raised with school sports, college sports, professional sports, and a culture that treasures “cheering for your team no matter what”… You will be susceptible to treating politics in the same manner. The media are simply cheerleaders that (by the use of simple slogans or “cheers”) rouse the crowds to heap abuse on the Red Team or the Blue Team.
But the main clause does apply to him. If you don’t think the CB can be declared an enemy combatant based on that law, then you simply don’t want to believe it. It is plain as print on paper.
Well, yeah!! That’s what some people are complaining about. They think he should.
Foreign national flying into the US? I think the SCOTUS might very well rule it is constitutional. But until they rule on that law, it is the law. Obama has the authority if he chooses to exercise it. I actually agree with him on this action, but I’m objective enough to see that there are two sides to this, and the other side isn’t crazy.