...by which Gitmo and the indeterminate period of detainment squeezes through. The rules of military detainment don't necessarily apply in cases where "normal", overt military action is going on...i.e. soldier vs. soldier.
Under the generally accepted rules, spies are fair game for...well..whatever. The current administration has stretched that to include the blanket term of "terrorists", which has created the Constitutionally-questionable situation we're discussing here.
If the Aussie dude had been caught as a spy, working against coalition forces in Afghanistan, the debate wouldn't have nearly the same legs that it does because he was caught as a "terrorist".
Personally (and from what little I know of the case), I'm inclined to think that, in his case, there's not a lot of difference between his activities as a terrorist or as a spy. At the very least, his detainment as a hostile in the military activities in Afghanistan marks him as a POW. Because we don't have a lot of legal precedent for the "terrorist" designation (other than the similarities to the "spy" designation), the idea of what his legal designation *should* be will depend largely on whatever new precedents can be established for these types of situations. There's lots of procedural mucking about that needs to happen to resolve the legal issues involved.
But getting back to the original debate, there is very little legal precedent I can see for simply sending the guy back to his home country. |
