It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Trump wrestles with handling American enemy combatants
His case loomed in the background last week as the Trump administration publicly grappled with whether to prosecute the suspect in the New York terror attack — a lawful permanent resident of the U.S. — or do as the president and some Capitol Hill Republicans suggested, and send him to the U.S. detention camp at Guantánamo Bay.
This is an extremely unsettled part of U.S. law that has vexed every administration since 9/11. Although the law is clearer when an American is captured fighting in an active combat theater, rather than carrying out a “lone-wolf” attack in the United States, U.S. policy on American enemy combatants has largely been decided by narrow, individual court rulings.
Detainee experts say there is little question that the military has the authority to hold a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident as an enemy combatant — a designation which denies the detained their Miranda warning and allows them to be interrogated under military rules.
This is one of the reasons that the U.S. hasn’t sent anyone to Guantánamo Bay since 2008 — sending an ISIS fighter or ISIS-inspired attacker to the detention facility would almost certainly trigger an immediate legal challenge that the government could lose.
Sending an American to Guantánamo Bay for the first time would raise even more unanswered questions about what additional legal protections a detainee would be entitled to as a U.S. citizen
originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: Elostone
That is what jumped out at me, too. I may be incorrect, but I interpreted that to mean that if one actually takes up arms or engages in combat against our military forces, he/she is considered an enemy combatant and can be tried in a Military Tribunal.
In a filing today with the federal District Court for the District of Columbia, the Department of Justice submitted a new standard for the government’s authority to hold detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility. The definition does not rely on the President’s authority as Commander-in-Chief independent of Congress’s specific authorization. It draws on the international laws of war to inform the statutory authority conferred by Congress. It provides that individuals who supported al Qaeda or the Taliban are detainable only if the support was substantial. And it does not employ the phrase "enemy combatant."
In its filing today, the government bases its authority to hold detainees at Guantanamo on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which Congress passed in September 2001, and which authorized the use of force against nations, organizations, or persons the president determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the September 11 attacks, or harbored such organizations or persons. The government’s new standard relies on the international laws of war to inform the scope of the president’s authority under this statute, and makes clear that the government does not claim authority to hold persons based on insignificant or insubstantial support of al Qaeda or the Taliban.
The government’s new standard relies on the international laws of war to inform the scope of the president’s authority under this statute, and makes clear that the government does not claim authority to hold persons based on insignificant or insubstantial support of al Qaeda or the Taliban.
Goodbye, Mr. Rosenstein.
Desperate people do desperate things.
It is during this period of time that surveillance pays off.
When does a BIRD sing?
However, what if, as some on the right suggested, it wasn’t written by a member of the administration at all? What if this strange article, which claimed ‘resistance’ within the White House was constantly undermining the president, was written by, say, a college student? That’s the theory posed by @MightyCassandra on Twitter.