So, it's reasonable to dispute a President's authority to declare someone an enemy combatant and then detain that person, but it's unquestionable that he has the power to name someone an enemy combatant and kill them?


Yes. AZKC asked another version of this question.

It is absolutely the case that the president can authorize all manner of lethal violence against enemies in the field. It is equally unquestionable that once he has custody of them, different rules apply.

One famous example of this is the Geneva Conventions.

Seems to me the first step in both is the same: declaring someone an enemy combatant. I'll grant you that the traditions of war and our laws give the President broad leeway when conducting a congressionally authorized war to determine who our enemies are, but it's never been unlimited.


Well, ok. This is an interesting formulation. What were those limits?

I was among President Bush's critics when it came to Hamdi and Padilla.


Me, too. When you have someone at your mercy, there is a set of obligations that do not apply when someone is shooting at you.

Those cases would have been different had they been foreign nationals. Quirin would have applied, whereas their being Americans put them in a different category than simply enemy combatants. An American fighting against America is never simply an enemy combatant.


But in Quirin that's exactly what the court held, isn't it? One of the spies claimed American citizenship, and the court said it didn't matter.


Edited 1 time by nessus2 09/06/12 16:26.