Replies

"If the military Executive Branch does not convince the judge that he is lawfully considered a combatant the judge will order that he be released; if they do he may be held until the Congressional authority is rescinded.

My point stands- he is getting his H_C rights. Didn't you claim he wasn't? Forgive me if I misunderstood- that certainly seemed to be your point.

If we are finished with that, as a JAG vet, you could tell every one here what Constitutional rights an unlawful combatant has."

First, if you are saying that by petitioning the courts on a writ of habeas corpus Padilla is getting his Constitutional Rights that is a stretch. . The Executive Branch is operating under what Legal Authority? Also please tell me what Congressional Authority in this case you are speaking of? If you are speaking of Congress's joint resolution authorizing the use of force counts as a declaration of war that is very much a huge and open question.

The terms Unlawful and Lawful Combatants in the case of AQ and Taliban detainees is a very complex issue. Even under JOHNSON v. EISENTRAGER, 339 U.S. 763 (1950) and EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1 (1942). It’s a very complex issue especially when it comes to Taliban Detainees. AQ seem to fit the classification of Unlawful Combatants. As far as rights?

Start Reading…….

Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. Adopted by General Assembly resolution 43/173 of 9 December 1988

Law of War

Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War; August 12, 1949

"First, if you are saying that by petitioning the courts on a writ of habeas corpus Padilla is getting his Constitutional Rights that is a stretch"
You don't think an American has a Constitutionally guaranteed right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus?
Oh my! Read my posts to that ACLU troll, or check a copy of the Constitution.
Here are some precedents why he won't be released:
See, e.g., Quirin, 317 U.S. at 31, 37 (holding that both lawful and unlawful combatants, regardless of citizenship, "are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces"); Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304, 313-14 (1946) (same); In re Territo, 156 F.2d 142, 145 (9th Cir. 1946) (same).

Are you one of those that claim that congress's authorization to use military force means that the president can only kill those people- not take any of them prisoner?
That's not a civilized way of running a war. I hope we are better than that!

Thanks for the links, I think the 'unlawful combatant factor' will be rearing it's head soon.