5 ms·

>this happened under a legal theory that would not apply in Snowden's case how can he be sure that there isn't other legal theory secretly approved by secret c

>this happened under a legal theory that would not apply in Snowden's case how can he be sure that there isn't other legal theory secretly approved by secret court that would allow to subject him to simulated death (or something even more devilish) without leaving any evidence on his body? After all Snowden had security clearance, had friends in these agencies, heard stories, so he do knows better what is waiting for him... >(it is impossible to consider him an enemy combatant) why? isn't it is just an at-will designation by the executive branch without any roots in domestic or international law? And even if not enemy combatant, "enemy of the US" or "enemy of freedom" would work fine as well and would qualify him for "enhanced interrogation techniques 2.0 freedom deluxe edition" (nice movie "Dictator" btw)

mpyne 13y ago
> why? isn't it is just an at-will designation by the executive branch without any roots in domestic or international law? Perhaps surprisingly, but no it's not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  i don't say that these words didn't exist before. If you read the link you submitted, the first 2 paragraphs clearly state that "enemy combatant" notion used in the US after 9/11 is different from typical meaning of enemy combatant that existed before. The "enemy combatant" as it is used in the US means people in the US custody who is outside of the US jurisdiction and have at the will of the executive branch been denied Geneva convention (which covers _everybody_, not just uniformed combatants - everybody else is also entitled to protected POW status until put into domestic justice system of the country possessing the custody) Such "enemy combatant" notion don't have basis in the US law as well as in international law.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    From the ruling given in 1942: "...an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals." Likewise, from the very same two paragraphs you reference you would find that the Bush-definition of enemy combatant describes an "unlawful combatant" who has no right to POW status under Geneva or the LOAC. That doesn't mean that such civilian combatants have no rights whatsoever, but they are far limited compared to what Geneva provides for uniformed forces, and there is indeed precedent in international (and U.S.) law. For instance, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld was argued to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004, which ruled (among other things) "... repudiating the U.S. government's unilateral assertion of executive authority to suspend the constitutional protections of individual liberty of a U.S. citizen. The Court recognized the power of the government to detain unlawful combatants, but ruled that detainees must have the ability to challenge their detention before an impartial judge.". Congress tried to clarify in 2006 with the "Military Commissions Act of 2006" which does indeed contain a definition of an unlawful enemy combatant (one not reliant solely on the will of the executive). Likewise, several Supreme Court rulings have further eroded the position taken by Bush regarding the legal rights afforded to unlawful combatants held in Gitmo and other places. And going back to the subject here (of whether the executive can unilaterally declare Snowden to be an 'enemy combatant' and send him to Gitmo): "On 18 December 2003, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals declared that the Bush Administration lacked the authority to detain a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil as an "illegal enemy combatant" without clear congressional authorization (per 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a)); it consequently ordered the government to release Padilla from military custody within thirty days." (Padilla was a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil). But, that case ended up being thrown out on a technicality. When it was re-argued in the right court, they "ordered the Bush administration to either charge Padilla or release him.". They relied for that ruling on the Supreme Court ruling I'd just mentioned. So no, Snowden should be perfectly safe from treatment as any kind of weird unlawful combatant should he return. In fact the term 'enemy combatant' was dropped in 2009 coincident to a certain regime change in the U.S.
    - VladRussian2 13y ago
rayiner 13y ago
> how can he be sure that there isn't other legal theory secretly approved by secret court that would allow to subject him to simulated death (or something even more devilish) without leaving any evidence on his body? Because there is no such "secret court?" As a civilian Snowden cannot be tried in a military tribunal, and the only "secret court" that exists is FISC which is only empowered to grant warrants. As a practical matter, people a lot more disliked by the state than Edward Snowden get tried in regular U.S. District Courts.
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  >Because there is no such "secret court?" agree, secret court is too much. A confidential interpretation by a government lawyer would be enough as always.

mpyne 13y ago

> why? isn't it is just an at-will designation by the executive branch without any roots in domestic or international law? Perhaps surprisingly, but no it's not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant

VladRussian2 13y ago
i don't say that these words didn't exist before. If you read the link you submitted, the first 2 paragraphs clearly state that "enemy combatant" notion used in the US after 9/11 is different from typical meaning of enemy combatant that existed before. The "enemy combatant" as it is used in the US means people in the US custody who is outside of the US jurisdiction and have at the will of the executive branch been denied Geneva convention (which covers _everybody_, not just uniformed combatants - everybody else is also entitled to protected POW status until put into domestic justice system of the country possessing the custody) Such "enemy combatant" notion don't have basis in the US law as well as in international law.
- mpyne 13y ago
  From the ruling given in 1942: "...an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals." Likewise, from the very same two paragraphs you reference you would find that the Bush-definition of enemy combatant describes an "unlawful combatant" who has no right to POW status under Geneva or the LOAC. That doesn't mean that such civilian combatants have no rights whatsoever, but they are far limited compared to what Geneva provides for uniformed forces, and there is indeed precedent in international (and U.S.) law. For instance, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld was argued to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004, which ruled (among other things) "... repudiating the U.S. government's unilateral assertion of executive authority to suspend the constitutional protections of individual liberty of a U.S. citizen. The Court recognized the power of the government to detain unlawful combatants, but ruled that detainees must have the ability to challenge their detention before an impartial judge.". Congress tried to clarify in 2006 with the "Military Commissions Act of 2006" which does indeed contain a definition of an unlawful enemy combatant (one not reliant solely on the will of the executive). Likewise, several Supreme Court rulings have further eroded the position taken by Bush regarding the legal rights afforded to unlawful combatants held in Gitmo and other places. And going back to the subject here (of whether the executive can unilaterally declare Snowden to be an 'enemy combatant' and send him to Gitmo): "On 18 December 2003, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals declared that the Bush Administration lacked the authority to detain a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil as an "illegal enemy combatant" without clear congressional authorization (per 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a)); it consequently ordered the government to release Padilla from military custody within thirty days." (Padilla was a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil). But, that case ended up being thrown out on a technicality. When it was re-argued in the right court, they "ordered the Bush administration to either charge Padilla or release him.". They relied for that ruling on the Supreme Court ruling I'd just mentioned. So no, Snowden should be perfectly safe from treatment as any kind of weird unlawful combatant should he return. In fact the term 'enemy combatant' was dropped in 2009 coincident to a certain regime change in the U.S.
  - VladRussian2 13y ago

rayiner 13y ago

> how can he be sure that there isn't other legal theory secretly approved by secret court that would allow to subject him to simulated death (or something even more devilish) without leaving any evidence on his body? Because there is no such "secret court?" As a civilian Snowden cannot be tried in a military tribunal, and the only "secret court" that exists is FISC which is only empowered to grant warrants. As a practical matter, people a lot more disliked by the state than Edward Snowden get tried in regular U.S. District Courts.

VladRussian2 13y ago
>Because there is no such "secret court?" agree, secret court is too much. A confidential interpretation by a government lawyer would be enough as always.