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.
|
You have to be carful here Was.
It was designed to strip people of due process so we can do all types of ugly things to them and these persons were suposed to be foreigners not citizens.
The argument was later made that even if you are a citizen but was caught outside our territory messing up we could do these ugly things to you.
Now they want to extend this enemy combatant business to citizen on our soil.
God forbid someone sets you up or law enforcers err. What chance do you have of clearing yourself if enemy combatant policy becomes the norm?