4 ms·
I won't get into a debate on HN on whether the underlying rule is good or not, but the justification for holding enemy detainees is founded on historical practi
by torstenvl 5y ago
I won't get into a debate on HN on whether the underlying rule is good or not, but the justification for holding enemy detainees is founded on historical practice during times of war. And, traditionally, the authority to do that ends when the conflict is over.
The agreement with the Taliban and the withdrawal from Afghanistan, in my view, brings the authority to continue military detention of many of these individuals into question.
The chief argument to the contrary would be that these are not purely military courts and not purely military detention. Congress set up the commissions system as an Article I court, rather than this existing purely under the President's Article II war powers.
- shkkmo 5y agoLegally, there was never any war. This means that "war prisoners" are actually just people that the US illegally kidnapped, illegally detained, and illegally tortured. Ignore the legal window dressing around these "trials", it is all illegal.
- tokai 5y agoIf they actually was war prisoners US wouldn't have been able to treat them like this. The 'enemy combatant' swindle made it possible to treat them with no rights.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- torstenvl 5y agoThat's an awful lot of legal conclusions. Are you licensed to practice law? What's the case law that forms the basis of your analysis?
- pessimizer 5y agoYou also seem to have omitted any qualifications or citations.
- torstenvl 5y agoCheck my profile and comment history for my qualifications. As for citations, a citation is not needed for "in my view" discussion. I very clearly marked out my post as personal opinion, avoided legal conclusions, and acknowledged an argument from the other side. This is what responsible people do in public discourse.
- torstenvl 5y agoExtremely frustrating that HN is acting so terribly lately.