CATO
While we recognize that war differs qualitatively from peace, the Administration has made no attempt to draw the qualitative distinctions that should separate accused civilians from enemy combatants. If this difference is left nebulous, and subject to "flexible reinterpretation" by whoever holds the Administration, then anyone who differs dramatically and vocally from the policy of this Administration -- or future Administrations -- could be in for an exceedingly rough ride.
The old standard was that an "enemy combatant" was someone you'd captured on the battlefield, wearing the uniform of the enemy, or at least visibly bearing arms in company with the enemy. That was the trigger, if you'll pardon the choice of words, for all the classical protections afforded to captured soldiers under international rules of civilized combat. It was also the rationale for the summary execution of saboteurs and spies, who were 1) conducting war against you within your own land, but 2) not doing so in uniform, and thereby assuming the appearance of one of your own, protected civil populace.
The sin of the Administration to this point has been to downplay the combatant / accused civilian distinction to the point of effacing it completely. For the sake of our freedom, the very security against arbitrary exertions of power we claim to be defending, we must unearth and revitalize these rules. Once that's been done, let Hamdi, Padilla et al. be re-examined under them. It's nothing more than justice -- and justice is most endangered when we propose to suspend it in treating with persons we find repugnant.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com