The term has precisely 1 point of reference in US history prior to 9-11. The 1942 case involving German Saboteurs. The real legal precedent for the use of the term "Enemy Combatant" is being established right now, as you read this, by the Bush administration. Whether or not this preposterous term will be legitimized is up to the American public.

Thanks to the Military Commissions act, anyone, including you, can be deemed an enemy combatant by the Executive. If you disagree with this, and wish to challenge it, you will have to do so before a military court. Furthermore, the state is under absolutely no obligation to disclose any evidence as to why they called you this in the first place. Instant detention without trial. Read the Act.

<link>

This term was deliberately invoked for the reasons stated in the article - to avoid having to prove that a person is a terrorist once they have been accused of it. Including US citizens. It is a verbal Guantanamo - a legal black hole, which, by merit of its mere existence and acceptance by the American public, allows for the complete suspension of any and all legal rights.

As for Padilla, the facts of his story sounds like a fictionalized "what if" story that people more left wing than me would invent to show how Orwellian the Bush administration could be. But theres no maybe about it - there he is. A U.S. citizen detained for (what crime?) for three years in a military prison. He will not be tried as a citizen.

It is incumbent on anyone who values the rule of law in this country and wishes to affirm that there is, in fact, an ethical difference between us and those we fight to reject the insiduous idea of "enemy combatants", because, technically, you meet the defenition of one.

Your Last paragraph:

<<It is incumbent on anyone who values the rule of law in this country and wishes to affirm that there is, in fact, an ethical difference between us and those we fight to reject the insiduous idea of "enemy combatants", because, technically, you meet the defenition of one.>>

From your link:

<<`(4) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means an individual engaged in hostilities against the United States who is not a lawful enemy combatant.'>>

To my knowledge, I am not "engaged in hostilities against the United States...

How do I "technically meet the definition"?

If president Bush claims that you are engaged in hostile activities, then thats it. You have no legal recourse.

OK, so the president needs to declare you a combatant. But what I am getting at is that, since no evidence need be provided, (i.e, that you are in fact just some person sitting in front of your computer, not engaged in hostile activities), you fit the defenition of an enemy combatant in legal terms. Legally, you only need to be called an enemy combatant by the right people (the executive branch) to have all your rights stripped and guilt presumed before innocence.

Its the only term in I know of which, when used in accusation, immediately (and legally) places you in precisely the same state as if it were proven fact. Since the facts of whether you do or do not engage in hostilities against this country are irrelevant, the president and I do not find your second-to-last sentance to have any bearing on whether or not you are an enemy combatant. At least, no bearing that we need disclose.

Thus, to the knowledge of the American legal system, you are just as good a candidate as anyone to be held as an enemy combatant.

It may have something to do with planning in concert with a foreign based terror organization to set off a radiological device in a US City. That's not just "President Bush calling you one."

As for eliminating it from the lexicon, what else to call them? Perhaps we should just call them what they are, terrorists, and be done with it. Euphemisms or Buckleyesque verbiage just don't do it for some individuals. "Terrorists" works fine.

Yes, "terrorist" is fine. Why? Because its a relatively well-defined term. It is also a term that squarely places the accused in the realm of criminal justice, rather than war. If we are fighting Al-Qaida in Iraq, or Taliban in Afghanistan, its a shooting war, one force against another.

If you are arresting people plotting to blow civilians up in our country, or having blown things up previously, they are terrorists. Since they weren't shooting at you in the heat of battle, you need to prove that they did in fact conspire to kill, and punish them accordingly.

Given that the term "enemy combatant" can apply to US citizens, it is absolutely imperetive that the Executive make their case before subjecting someone to indefinite detention. You cannot throw someone in jail indefinetly, without trial or evidence brought against them, unless they are a POW. POW is a legal term. So is Terrorist. Enemy combatant has just become one as well. I understand that the president has his reasons for declaring someone an "enemy combatant," but they should be declared "terrorists" instead, have formal charges brought against them, and sentanced accordingly. None of that needs to happen when you are an "enemy combatant"

Your arguments would do away with the concept of conspiracy. If you do not plan and execute an illegal activity, then conspiracy is nothing but persecution. Hello, our laws on racketeering are tougher than your concept of terrorist laws.

"Your arguments would do away with the concept of conspiracy."

I don't see how you reach that conclusion. Conspiracy, much like terrorism, is something you need to prove exists before you dole out a punishment for it. We do a whole lot of work monitoring racketeering and terror-plotting, as we should, and collect evidence in the process.

Likewise, charges of conspiracy, racketeering, terrorism, conspiracy to commit murder - anything that is based on intent - requires evidence of a plan to prosecute. No contradiction there.

Terrorism is pretty easily defined as targeted violence against civilians\noncombatants as a means to promote an agenda, usually a political agenda. There are various legal definitions already used by most countries, and international legal bodies.

Who determines who is and is not a terrorist is precisely the point of this post - a Judge and\or Jury. Just like any legal question (who determines who determines who infringed copyright? Who determines who committed murder?) The answer is obvious: a court of law.

Police arrest and charge people and present evidence, they don't determine guilt or innocence. The term "enemy combatant" is a practical measure used by this administration (the executive branch, ie, Police) to excuse themselves from their duty to bring accused terrorists before a court. The president is now legally allowed to determine the guilt of someone through the use of the term.

A lucid, hopeful, rational answer. However, I find precious little in American history to persuade me that the rule of law matters.

Police routinely set themselves up as judge and jury. They freely manipulate evidence at the least to make themselves appear rightous and legal: MSNBC Breaking News: police in (any city USA) arrested four illegals, terrorists, smugglers, niggars of one sort or another, take your pick, and confiscated $20 billion worth of cocaine, pot, meth, counterfit money or Ralph Loren, arms, or ideas, again, take your pick. On closer scrutiny the amount of contraband (street value, of course) doesn't quite add up. Judges are mostly predisposed to accept the police version especially (but not limited to) high profile cases; they are elected and they don't want to be lawyers again. The SCOTUS has decended into a raw cesspool of irrationality.

What country has not targeted innocents? Iraq, which ever sect that may refer to? Britain? Lessee, Africa, Asia, America? Not Russia, lots of dead Afghans and Chechens? Off the subject, while idiot Conservatives brag that Ronny RAyGun brought the Soviets to their knees, lets remember the role an immoral, lawless, and profoundly Islamic nation had in that empirical collapse: aye, Afghanistan. And America? What about American terrorism? El Salvador? Trail of tears? My Lia? And my personal favorite; the bombing of Nakasaki. I've searched the Truman library fairly thoroughly, it's not very well organized on this point, and it seems the decision to drop bomb #2 was an after thought. Nobody in the administration questioned it, especially not the little tough responsibility accepting haberdasher his currently over honored self. Civilians? Plenty, currently 140,000 and still counting. Terror? Yeah, plenty of terror. Military usefullness? Nah.

My belief is that Americans, not so unlike most other great powers, don't give a shit about the rule of law until its too late; as when lawlessness suddenly applies to them. As for others, let them rot, is a polite construction. A universal truth: they are terrrorists and so are we. True no matter who says it. I believe in a world that supports your vision of Enlightenment rationality. But aren't all important judgments and democratic decisions political? What politician is ever elected on the basis of rationality? What king steps aside when he's proven fatally wrong?

Your position is well taken, strongly argued, and clearly morally sound. I would like to think reality matched the vision. Maybe I'm wrong. I stuggle to find examples of justice without the taint of blood anywhere. I'd like to be wrong. I'm afraid I'm not.

...if we have no clearly defined enemy?

Because of what they belifve and nothing more?

The logical next step in the Bush administrations 'war' on terror would be to simply go after all Islamists. Simply adhering to Islam would, by thier logic, support and aid our 'enemies.'

Who are our enemies? Radical Islamists. How do we determine which ones are radical and which are not?

After Nixon and Vietnam, I never thought I would see my country follow that path again. Not only are we following it again, we've traveled further down it than ever before. And, again, not only that, but we drove the car this time.