Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] what waterboarding looks like [Politics]

[Stephen Montgomery-Smith <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Mike Miller wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>
> > Jonathan King wrote:
> >
> > > There is evidently some question about whether waterboarding is or is 
> > > not banned by recent legislation addressing how we can interrogate 
> > > and try certain enemy combatants (and what an enemy combatant really 
> > > is, and that's very worrisome, because there are no hard standards).
> >
> >
> > Let me address just this issue of what constitutes an enemy combatant. 
> > I am not an expert on the Geneva convention by any means.  Being a US 
> > citizen incurs certain rights (due process, etc), and also being a POW 
> > incurs certain rights (Geneva convention, etc).
>
>
> Does being a US citizen mean that you cannot be an enemy combatant?  I 
> don't know and am wondering about that issue.  OK, I guess a US citizen 
> can be considered an enemy combatant...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaser_Esam_Hamdi
>
> If someone is detained as an enemy combatant and habeas corpus is 
> suspended, how do we ever know that they are an enemy combatant?  There 
> is no trial.
>
> I often hear people say "look, these people are trying to kill us -- why 
> should we do things for them, like give them hearings?"  The obvious 
> answer is that we have not established that they are trying to kill us 
> -- that is merely a claim, and it is a claim that should be tested in a 
> hearing.  Who is Maher Arar?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar
>
> What, except for public outrage, would stop the President from claiming 
> that some US Senator is an enemy combatant, imprisoning that Senator and 
> refusing him a hearing?  Instead of telling me that is ridiculous, tell 
> me how the *law* prevents it from happening.
>
> Mike

I do not know the particulars of this particular incident (i.e. the 
Wikopedia is only one side of the issue).  But I do find it believable 
that he might have been falsly acused and improperly treated.  (I also 
find it believable that he was as guilty as they say he was, and even 
that they had very good evidence to support their contention.  Also, as 
best as I can see, their action - to depart him to Syria - was 
completely legal.)

But this does not get to the principle of what constitutes an enemy 
combatant.

In other words, I don't mind there being certain safeguards put in place 
to help make sure that people don't get falsly and improperly treated. 
But I do mind that we remove the whole category of 'enemy combatant' 
altogether, without having some form of replacement category of a 
captured enemy who is not accorded POW status.

Stephen

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion