2 ms·
I undrestand that there's a good amount of carve outs for wartime stuff. However, if there's any doubt about whether they even belong in the "enemy combatant"
by rtpg 9y ago
I undrestand that there's a good amount of carve outs for wartime stuff.
However, if there's any doubt about whether they even belong in the "enemy combatant" category, it seems pretty basic to allow them their attorney. Otherwise the gov't could claim you're an enemy combatant every time they want to take your rights away, and then lock you up forever.
Sure, eventually it will be overturned, but if the gov't just wants you in there for a bit then that's enough.
There's perhaps a more ambitious argument to be made here about the AUMF, what is actually a war, the classification of ISIS as such, etc. But good luck making that argument in this environment
- morganvachon 9y ago> "Otherwise the gov't could claim you're an enemy combatant every time they want to take your rights away, and then lock you up forever." Which is exactly what the judge in this case is afraid of: Judge Chutkan recognized how dangerous the government’s claims are. “The government could snatch any U.S. citizen off the street and hold them as an enemy combatant… for as long as it took to come to some ‘final disposition,’” she posited. “That kind of unchecked power is, quite frankly, frightening.”