Quote:
Originally Posted by Wasillaguy
We didn't get to that definition.
Under the provisions of the Secretary of the Navy Memorandum Implementation of Combatant Status Review Tribunal Procedures for Enemy Combatant Detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base Cuba ... An enemy combatant has been defined as "an individual who was part of or supporting the Taliban or al Qaida forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces."
But then in 2009 Eric Holder declared the term obsolete, so it technically no longer has a definition as far as the admin is concerned. That leaves us all free to decide the definition for ourselves.
Personally, I use the term literally. Anyone who intentionally injures or kills innocents in this country is our enemy as far as I'm concerned. Combatant is anyone fighting in a war. These two took guidance from Al Qaeda info sources and claim they did the deed for the same motivations as Al Qaeda, and that's good enough for my definition.
|
So, anyone who is accused of committing murder in the United States is an "enemy combatant", so long as they visited a website, run by a sworn enemy? How about if they got their "inspiration" after reading a newpaper or seeing a news segment on t.v.?
Why is it so important to you this guy be tried as an "enemy combatant"? He's not getting away with it anyways, so.....Who cares? Or, is this just another political game? I tend to think so.
Dave