It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

He is, by definition, an enemy combatant. Why will the administration not charge him as such?

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   
The "enemy combatant" plays into the Bush era
Guantanimo enhanced interrogation nonsense.

Ever wonder why Obama CAN'T close Gitmo ?
That's Pentagon territory. The Pentagon doesn't take
orders from anyone.

He's using normal justice to show there is a perfectly good
way of handling these scenarios without resorting to unethical
channels. Circumventing huge volumes of Bush era terrorist law.




posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 11:39 AM
link   
How ignorant? I am providing you the reasons why and how the law can be perverted for someones agenda and has been. There has been numerous revisions and addendum's. Also,you can stop with the Bush stuff as both administrations are guilty of reworking it for themselves(however no one bitched when OBL was killed) but the Obama admin seems again to be protecting the terrorist in this case. I am offering an idea to see where people stand so there can be discussion.

However,my point it is not to secure a conviction but to make sure that there are no active cells out there as we were told. To interrogate him and others. This is why the additions since 9/11 have been added. So, if you want someone who kills people and then has gun battles in the street the ability to clam up and not say anything then pot, it is the kettle calling because that is ignorant.

Our country is already being destroyed for citizens so why should it protect those who wish to harm us. If you can honestly say that these attacks were not based on Islamic fundamentalism gone wrong you are blind. It is everywhere and no one sees it creeping in.

The underlying fear is that there is a more devious reason that Obama seems to not want to prosecute Muslims as the enemy in this case or call them terrorists. How about one reason...

side note - Did you know that Obama's top advisor was born in Iran? Ms Jarrett. Did you know she has ties to numerous anti-american organizations at home and abroad. ook into her family. This is not people getting rich from oil but trying to destroy America from the inside out.Groups that funnel money to create a socialist nation. No, because it is the job of the MSM and others to keep you ignorant. They control the books and the media that you read. Bill Ayers sat on a board for one of her companies...follow the yellow brick road and you may not like where it leads. It does not stop here...the list goes on and on...

Doesn't matter as he has been Mirandized and the interrogation has stopped. Looks like ignorance won. If you would like to read it, here it is.....Link


edit on 23-4-2013 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by sealing
The "enemy combatant" plays into the Bush era
Guantanimo enhanced interrogation nonsense.

Ever wonder why Obama CAN'T close Gitmo ?
That's Pentagon territory. The Pentagon doesn't take
orders from anyone.

He's using normal justice to show there is a perfectly good
way of handling these scenarios without resorting to unethical
channels. Circumventing huge volumes of Bush era terrorist law.


The pentagon takes orders from teh commander in chief, the president. It is not that he can't close GITMO, it is that he does not want to. Now that he can use the power he railed against in the election, he is not just going to let it go.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   
On March 13, 2009 United States Attorney General Eric Holder issued a statement that the United States had abandoned the Bush administration term "enemy combatant".The statement said, ""As we work toward developing a new policy to govern detainees, it is essential that we operate in a manner that strengthens our national security, is consistent with our values, and is governed by law."

It was not Bush era, but it was used during the Bush era to detain AQ and Taliban suspects. The term has been used for quite a long time. Why would anyone get rid of something that has been used since our country was founded unless they are eroding he Constitution?

Also, Eric Hoilders law firm defends a few of the Gitmo detainees so go figure. Sounds like one big ass circus does it not

edit on 23-4-2013 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-4-2013 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
There is precedence, yes, but it is still part of the original act. This precedent though, is exactly why they are going the Fed route, vs. trying to use the enemy combatant angle. That part of the Act has been judged to be unconstitutional, but it is still on the books.


And up until recently it was still lawful to shoot and kill a Mormon on site in my state. Even though its still on the books, its not going to fly in court.

In my state we can also shoot a fleeing felon.. The problem is that law is in direct violation of a Supreme Court Ruling - Tennessee vs. Garner.

While the law is "still on the books" its not relevant since the courts have said no.

This case is no different....



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


The use of the term enemy combatant was paramount for the war on terror because of several treaties the Us is a signatory to. The Taliban / Al Queida are NOT signatories to UN conventions for war / pow's / etc. Those conventions allow for the detainment of individuals as enemy combatants who do not fall into the categories of an actual armed forces.

As for trial we are still at war, regardless of what this idiotic administration wishes to claim.

If they wish to try this guy as an enemy combatant then they need to strip his citizenship, which they can do since he is not natural born. The courts have already ruled a natural born citizen is the only person who can renounce their citizenship. There are caveats present in terms of a persons actions, however its very specific.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


It's tough to say. On one hand I would like to call him an enemy combatant...but then you have to think about the actual attack.

He didn't attack the government, he attacked civilians. It is more of a criminal act than an act of war.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by LogicGrind
He didn't attack the government, he attacked civilians....


Who are in fact the Government of the United States.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join