At 10:11 AM 01/09/2003 -0500, Duncan Frissell wrote:
It's a good thing he was captured by the Feds instead of a militia or a Private Defense Force of some sort. Note that such forces are not required to accept surrenders and can simply kill enemy forces (and vice-versa of course). Private citizens are not bound by the Constitution either of course (it binds only the governments).
The Feds keep asserting that the Constitution doesn't apply to them outside the US. A militia wouldn't have been in Afghanistan, or at least wouldn't have been attacking the Taliban government over there, though they (or hired mercs) might have gone after Al Qaeda.
On the other hand, if the US were following the traditional model for defense rather than having a standing army stomping around the world, it's highly unlikely that somebody like Al Qaeda would have attacked the World Trade Center, because they wouldn't have had their grievances about the US infidel forces stationed in the Holy Land of Saudi Arabia. They *might* have attacked Exxon headquarters because of Exxon mercs stationed in the Holy Land.
The Padilla case will be more important than the Hamdi case because he was arrested in Chicago rather than Afghanistan. Under the traditional laws of war, Padilla (if he is an enemy soldier) could have been executed as a spy since he entered the country in civilian clothes rather than in uniform.
But Padilla's a citizen, so entering the country in civilian clothes doesn't make him a spy, though spying might make him one.
All Al-Quida combatants in the US should definitely wear their uniforms so they can "get off on a technicality" if captured. I wonder what an Al-Quida uniform looks like?
I believe their fatigues uniform consists of pants and a shirt in arbitrary colors and low cost :-) Their dress uniforms are the turban and long shirt deal, but that's not for foreign expedition use.
