I am constantly amazed that these judicial cases are considered to be gray areas, or raising "serious questions" about the laws themselves. The only questions they raise are whether or not this adminsitration is going to give up its policy of ensuring that detentions are as lengthy, secretive, unrepresentative, and borderline illegal as possible.

These guys were Americans. They went to Iraq, and fought against US soldiers. This is a crime against the Iraqi state, and they should remain tried by Iraqi courts and incarcerated wherever and howerver the legal bodies in Iraq determine it to be so.

Iraq may not be a de-facto sovereign state, but it is, and should be treated as such de-jure. The fact that these guys (or anyone else, regardless of nationality) comes into Iraq and shoots at American soldiers does not make them guilty of crimes against America. Why? Because as an occupying force within a state with it's own legal mechanisms, we are acting as an enforcer of martial law - legally we operate there with the permission of the Iraqi government (and a sort-of-legal UN mandate). We are fighting under our own flag, but we are doing so to enforce the laws (and stability) of the country of Iraq.

Now, we COULD consider them guilty of waging war against the American army, and arrest them under US jurisdiction as POW's. However, this has not been the administration's policy. To my knowledge, there are zero POW's from the war on terror - only enemy combatants, who have a different legal status than POW's.

That's fine, if you do the legal thing and charge and try insurgents with the crime of insurgency. This has happened often enough, but it still seems like we would prefer to keep them untried, in legal limbo between POW and insurgent under the legal black-hole moniker of enemy combatant.

To say that there is a "gray area" here is to buy into the administration's newly invented extra-legal policy. Where there are gray areas, there is no law, and no judicial process. The fact remains that there are, in fact, international and Iraqi laws against terrorism, insurgency, and conspiracy against the state. It doesn't matter what you're nationality is, and we should stop pretending that someone who attacks a country out-of-uniform is a headscratcher for lawyers.

You mean like Blackwater and Halliburton?

If they fought Americans, then they have committed no crimes against Iraq. And if they are being held by the US instead of Iraqi forces then they are under SCOTUS jurisdiction every bit as much as someone who committs murder in the US Embassy in Moscow is under US, not Russian law.

What makes this a "gray area" in the law is soley the administrations assertions about "illegal combatants".

If they are U.S. citizens and fought against U.S. forces during war, they fall under TREASON laws and should be shot.

Astonishingly enough there are "activists" inside the US that think they have no obligation to safeguard this countrys position while at war. The words "we support our troops but disagree with the war" are treasonous. This is not a debate it is a war. A war where every sense of hesitation or in commitment to winning does cost American soldiers lives. While congress should debate the strategies of wars they have an obligation to do so in a militarily advantageous atmosphere not in the press or while stumping for an office.

I can't count the times where attacks have followed media reports of political unrest here in the states. Every soldier killed during those attacks I feel has been the victim of a partisan ploy to disadvantage the current administrations party during the next elections. It is akin to treason and through a loophole in wording, is legitimized, the results are none the less the same, Americans die.

As for justice, if in a war zone, its military justice. If in a soverign state it is of that state. If we are imperialists we hold sway over all in our midst. If there is a gray area it is there because these type of combatants were never before distinguished in battle, they were either combatants in uniform or enemies dressed to conceal their identities such as spies. I do believe a spy can be shot when captured. Wouldn't that be prudent in dealing with these so called non uniformed combatants? It would certainly end all this speculation that they are somehow innocent, as all captives claim, and should be returned not to their country of origin but to a place they may be reconciled with their non combatant allies.

Taking a stand state side against a war that we should not be in is every Americans right. The difference comes when you actualy attack our troops.

Maybe one of them does richly deserve a bullet to the head for treason. I have no problem with justice being prosecuted against those who have had a fair chance at the legal system.

One of them has never been charged. This goes against everything America stands for. Indeed, the very moral charge that makes this nation morally justified in executing traitors requires us to hold ourselves to a higher standard then ad hoc Iraqi courts.

In addition, I think many of us are cynical because the officials at Guantanamo and Abu Garrib (sp?) have seriously wounded America's reputation; I do not want to continue to imprison people without a charge against them, especially as we are now learning that some of the freed Guantanamo prisoners were held for years while being completely innocent.

I think these people, the ones who have such little respect for our legal system, are TREASONOUS themselves. I think people who support these officials that undermine the American justice system are at LEAST as America-hating as people who 'want America to lose.'

I agree,

A criminal act is a crime tried in the state in which it was comitted. A penality is accessed by the state according to their laws. Pending a pardon, citizenship not withstanding, you pay for the crime. Simple. Consistent with law. Let's move on. I understrand our "Bill of Rights" better and some day all countries will have their own. But that''s another topic!

pennsy

Well, it also matters if what they're being charged with is true or not. I have no faith whatsoever in the iraqi justice system to determine the truth of a matter. There are alot of troubling cases in iraq where people being detained are being detained more because OUR military doesn't like what they say, print, or photograph. Hell, there's an FBI informant that's been sitting in US custody and the military refuses to say why they're holding him. An american citizen born in the US that ratted out his iraqi company after he found out they were supplying insurgents. he told the military and they didn't care so he went to the FBI and worked with them until the military raided the company months later and detained him. I don't mind people being detained if there's reasonable suscipion but I also think that the military damn well better prove it's case and not rely on bullshit "secret" information or change the charges every so often without explanation. I see no difference between giving citizens over to the iraqi courts and sending off people to be tortured by other countries. And the international force is a %^@#ing joke, everyone knows its basically our military with window dressing.

What War?

Show me a Declaration of War. Absent such a declaration, shooting at US troops is simply a Federal Crime.

When you can show me a Declaration Of War, then you can talk about what goes on in a "war". Otherwise you are the one engaging in a partisan ploy. If anything, you are exactly the kind of person that President Teddy Roosevelt was speaking of when he said

To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.

As for your claim that

these type of combatants were never before distinguished in battle

The level of disconnect from the FACTS indicates a level of dishonesty or at best a profound ignorance and naivete. I'll assume that it is the latter so here are some inconvenient facts from the position you take

• The vast majority - perhaps as high as 80% - of the detainees on Gitmo - ACCORDING TO THE DoD - were NOT captured "on the battlefield" - but instead were rounded up in either "policing actions" or were turned in for a cash bounty by other Iraqis or Afghanis
• The term "Zealot" derives from a term the Romans used in the 2nd century to describe the suicidal religious fanatics in the Mid East that were committing acts of terrorism against the empire.

IOW these were not "combatants" except by dubious allegation, nor are they "of a type...never before distinguished in battle".

Stop drinking the koolaid and learn some facts