By Celia Alexander
What is an “Enemy Combatant”? Defining the term has confounded two White House administrations. In 2004, the Bush people held the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CRST) at Guantánamo Bay to determine if the prisoners could be qualified as “enemy combatants”. Previously, enemy combatants were the soldiers belonging to the army of an enemy, but many of the prisoners in Guantánamo Bay are citizens of countries that have good relations with the United States, like KSM who is originally from Kuwait, and are not part of their national army. Whither the definition and where does it go from here?
What is an “Enemy Combatant”? Defining the term has confounded two White House administrations. In 2004, the Bush people held the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CRST) at Guantánamo Bay to determine if the prisoners could be qualified as “enemy combatants”. Previously, enemy combatants were the soldiers belonging to the army of an enemy, but many of the prisoners in Guantánamo Bay are citizens of countries that have good relations with the United States, like KSM who is originally from Kuwait, and are not part of their national army. Whither the definition and where does it go from here?
By Celia Alexander
The United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, announced that five suspects from the 9/11 attacks, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, will be tried as civilians in the federal court in New York City. This decision has been heavily criticized for numerous reasons. Among them is the myth that it will make the US more of a target, the concern that it will give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (endearingly referred to by the media as KSM) a soapbox from which to preach his jihadist propaganda, and the suspicion that it will reveal intelligence that would endanger US national security, as if military secrets are going to be given away at the trial. However, these arguments and the debate about the venue of the trial, whether military or civilian courts, fail to address the underlying problem that the United States has neglected to address directly: how does one categorize a “terrorist”?
Before asking the question, “Should Khalid Sheikh Mohammed be tried in a civilian or military court?” The question should be, “Is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a civilian or not?” The terrorists associated with the global “war on terror” have long been loosely defined as “enemy combatants”, but what does that classification mean in relation to prosecution?
The term “enemy combatant” has vexed two White House administrations. In 2004, the Bush administration held the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CRST) at Guantánamo Bay to determine if the prisoners could be qualified as “enemy combatants”. Previously, enemy combatants were the soldiers belonging to the army of an enemy, but many of the prisoners in Guantánamo Bay are citizens of countries that have good relations with the United States, like KSM who is originally from Kuwait, and are not part of their national army. The CSRT did extend the definition of “enemy combatant” to include operatives of the Taliban and al Qaeda. KSM, by the Bush administration definition, is undoubtedly an “enemy combatant”. Then, on March 13, 2009, President Obama said his administration announced they planned to phase out the term “enemy combatant”.
Before 9/11, terrorist activities were seen as a sign of weakness, and it was the policy not to deal with terrorists directly in order to send the message that they were too insignificant to be taken seriously, therefore discouraging other attacks. Two wars and almost ten years later, tactics have changed. The US is now engaged in a new and ever-changing era of counterterrorism. Holder has confirmed that the US is at “war” with these terrorist organizations. But the US has also declared war on inanimate objects, such as drugs.
Republican Congressman Lindsey Graham from South Carolina questioned Holder at the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on November 18. He addressed the issue of the discrepancy between treating terrorists sometimes like military operatives, and then treating them like criminals at other times. In the field, the military and the CIA do use “flexible” interrogation tactics to extract information needed at that moment to save lives. However, if these people are tried as criminals, they are entitled to a lawyer from the beginning and should be read their Miranda rights. In criminal cases, evidence extracted without a warrant, or under torture, will be thrown out in a court of law. Graham uses the example, if Osama bin Laden was caught tomorrow, would he be read his Miranda rights before interrogation?
Trying terrorists in civilian courts is not unprecedented. In 2001, two men were tried in a federal court in New York for bombing US embassies in East Africa. This upcoming trial is going to be closely scrutinized and could serve as the model of how terrorists are brought to justice. The Bush administration concentrated solely on capturing terrorists but neglected to decide what to do with them afterward. As a result, many have illegally languished in Guantánamo Bay prison for years. The Obama administration seeks, as it should, to give the accused a fair and transparent trial. By ordering the phasing out of the term “enemy combatant” and deciding to try terrorists in a federal courtroom, the Obama administration is clearly changing the policies laid out by the Bush administration. It is absolutely imperative that the Unites States uphold its values and demonstrate the strength of its legal system by giving the men suspected of orchestrating one of the worst attacks in the nation’s history the right to a fair trial. During this process, however, the current administration must seek to clearly define how to classify a terrorist.
http://www.continentaldivide.us/article ... atant.htmlWhat is an “Enemy Combatant”? Defining the term has confounded two White House administrations. In 2004, the Bush people held the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CRST) at Guantánamo Bay to determine if the prisoners could be qualified as “enemy combatants”. Previously, enemy combatants were the soldiers belonging to the army of an enemy, but many of the prisoners in Guantánamo Bay are citizens of countries that have good relations with the United States, like KSM who is originally from Kuwait, and are not part of their national army. Whither the definition and where does it go from here?
What is an “Enemy Combatant”? Defining the term has confounded two White House administrations. In 2004, the Bush people held the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CRST) at Guantánamo Bay to determine if the prisoners could be qualified as “enemy combatants”. Previously, enemy combatants were the soldiers belonging to the army of an enemy, but many of the prisoners in Guantánamo Bay are citizens of countries that have good relations with the United States, like KSM who is originally from Kuwait, and are not part of their national army. Whither the definition and where does it go from here?
By Celia Alexander
The United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, announced that five suspects from the 9/11 attacks, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, will be tried as civilians in the federal court in New York City. This decision has been heavily criticized for numerous reasons. Among them is the myth that it will make the US more of a target, the concern that it will give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (endearingly referred to by the media as KSM) a soapbox from which to preach his jihadist propaganda, and the suspicion that it will reveal intelligence that would endanger US national security, as if military secrets are going to be given away at the trial. However, these arguments and the debate about the venue of the trial, whether military or civilian courts, fail to address the underlying problem that the United States has neglected to address directly: how does one categorize a “terrorist”?
Before asking the question, “Should Khalid Sheikh Mohammed be tried in a civilian or military court?” The question should be, “Is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a civilian or not?” The terrorists associated with the global “war on terror” have long been loosely defined as “enemy combatants”, but what does that classification mean in relation to prosecution?
The term “enemy combatant” has vexed two White House administrations. In 2004, the Bush administration held the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CRST) at Guantánamo Bay to determine if the prisoners could be qualified as “enemy combatants”. Previously, enemy combatants were the soldiers belonging to the army of an enemy, but many of the prisoners in Guantánamo Bay are citizens of countries that have good relations with the United States, like KSM who is originally from Kuwait, and are not part of their national army. The CSRT did extend the definition of “enemy combatant” to include operatives of the Taliban and al Qaeda. KSM, by the Bush administration definition, is undoubtedly an “enemy combatant”. Then, on March 13, 2009, President Obama said his administration announced they planned to phase out the term “enemy combatant”.
Before 9/11, terrorist activities were seen as a sign of weakness, and it was the policy not to deal with terrorists directly in order to send the message that they were too insignificant to be taken seriously, therefore discouraging other attacks. Two wars and almost ten years later, tactics have changed. The US is now engaged in a new and ever-changing era of counterterrorism. Holder has confirmed that the US is at “war” with these terrorist organizations. But the US has also declared war on inanimate objects, such as drugs.
Republican Congressman Lindsey Graham from South Carolina questioned Holder at the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on November 18. He addressed the issue of the discrepancy between treating terrorists sometimes like military operatives, and then treating them like criminals at other times. In the field, the military and the CIA do use “flexible” interrogation tactics to extract information needed at that moment to save lives. However, if these people are tried as criminals, they are entitled to a lawyer from the beginning and should be read their Miranda rights. In criminal cases, evidence extracted without a warrant, or under torture, will be thrown out in a court of law. Graham uses the example, if Osama bin Laden was caught tomorrow, would he be read his Miranda rights before interrogation?
Trying terrorists in civilian courts is not unprecedented. In 2001, two men were tried in a federal court in New York for bombing US embassies in East Africa. This upcoming trial is going to be closely scrutinized and could serve as the model of how terrorists are brought to justice. The Bush administration concentrated solely on capturing terrorists but neglected to decide what to do with them afterward. As a result, many have illegally languished in Guantánamo Bay prison for years. The Obama administration seeks, as it should, to give the accused a fair and transparent trial. By ordering the phasing out of the term “enemy combatant” and deciding to try terrorists in a federal courtroom, the Obama administration is clearly changing the policies laid out by the Bush administration. It is absolutely imperative that the Unites States uphold its values and demonstrate the strength of its legal system by giving the men suspected of orchestrating one of the worst attacks in the nation’s history the right to a fair trial. During this process, however, the current administration must seek to clearly define how to classify a terrorist.
