Someone posted an article last week about the terrorist in Fla. who was a jewish doctor, and had explosives and plans to blow up a muslim education center. I want to give props for the catching this guy before he was able to strike, but I have a question. Why wasn't the guy held as an enemy combatant? The war is against terrorism, and several muslims have been held as enemy combatants in this war. Why wasn't this guy? Is there a double standard, or are there other reasons?
I'm sure if there were a Jewish terrorist group similar to Al-Quaeda that we were at war with and was looking to inflict harm on the US, and this guy may have had useful information concerning this group, then he might have been held as an enemy combatant. If he was just a crazy nut acting alone, I don't see any benefit in holding him as an EC. Just my opinion.
Is the "Enemy Combatant" label a valid classification of the suspect, or is it just a designation that makes his arrest, indictment and conviction much easier and more sure?
I believe Enemy Combatant means they can hold suspects under different rules, and try them in different courts. Enemy combatants aren't granted the full protection of the constitution.
Probably because he is an American citizen captured in the US. Most of the enemy combatant types never make it to <i>United States</i> soil and are not afforded the same rights as American citizens.
Well, he did say most of them. Lone nuts don't qualify as enemy combatants. There has to be some reasonable suspicion that the person so classified is part of a larger group waging war (of some sort) against the United States. Though Joseph Padilla was arrested in Chicago, he had trained with al Qaeda in Pakistan and could be connected to the "enemy forces" At least that's my understanding of how it works.
Thanks Mr. Paige. I didn't know that the requirement to be labeled was connection to a larger group. I know the florida terrorist did mention at least one accomplice. Also when the lone person attacked the Elal counter at the Los Angeles airport, they made mention that he was muslim. I don't think as much attention was paid to this man's religion. I don't know that it should have been or not, just that there does appear to be a double standard. If it's true about the whole affiliation to the group thing, then that might explain at least part of it. I don't think the two brothers(I forget their name) from Seattle were connected with a larger group, but I don't remember all of the information about that case. I thought the only larger group those guys were associated with would be the mosque. If that's the case, then I wonder if the govt. is investigating the fla. terrorists synagogue. I'm trying to find out more since I don't know for sure especially about the brothers from Seattle. If anyone has any links or more info please post it. I would love to read about it
