[lepton]

By the ususal rules of reciprocity in international affairs, if the US is allowed to go to foreign countries and seize people and hold them without trial, other countries will do the same to us.

If they invade the United States, I would fully expect such seizing. No warrants to search fox-holes. No reading of Miranda rights when shooters taken into custody. You seem to not realize that wars have been fought for centuries, and that there are long-established rules on this stuff. On the other hand, being a soldier and fighting under command of a nations authorities is not considered a crime and they may not be punished - though these POWs may be held. That unmarked combatants (illegal) may be summarily executed is a measure to protect non-combatants from direct action against them by combatants.

That so many people regard this issue in a historical vaccuum, and seem to further disregard the particulars of the cases, makes me question their basic mental competence - especially how vigourous they hold their opinions..

The gray area is in circumstances such as Jose Padilla - though the precedent is that he could indeed be held as an enemy combatant - his being part of a foreign military force. He cannot be further punished (such as required to to perform labor beyond taking care of themselves, nor required to compensate for upkeep) though until he is charged.

[cdrw]

I read the opinion and the dissent. I am not an attorney so I really don't know the laws involved. But after you get passed all their arguments about what the definition of "is" is in order to conclude that Gitmo is sovereign US territory, they seem to be arguing the principle that there should be / are no circumstances under which the US Govt can detain people indefinitely without due process.

Okay. On an emotional level I can see that principle. But ... these people are illegal combatants and its my understanding that we may have had the legal right, under international treaty and US laws of war, to summarily execute them without ever taking them prisoner. The concept of legal due process for people making illegal war against us seems absurd to me.

The principle they argue seems to hold that if they had landed a 10,000 strong army in southern California and commenced military operations against us, all while wearing civilian clothes and not acting under the command of a state army, that each and every one of them would be entitled to protections under our courts and could hire lawyers to argue that they were just innocent bystanding illegal aliens awaiting their new CA drivers licenses and matricula cards. All because they happened to be on US soil.

Would we actually have to provide due process for invaders? Is there no body of law or international treaty that prevents detained combatants from using the very protections they are fighting against to further their cause?

I can see an absolute requirement that US citizens taken into custody in the US have an unquestioned right to due process. I can see that no government should have the right to conduct rifle shot abductions on foreign soil. But with regards to combatants in a war zone I just can't believe there is no law allowing us to detain people for military purposes as the military sees fit.