Conflict Terminology: Enemy Combatant 

By Hassan El-Najjar and Ronald Douglas Kennedy

Al-Jazeerah, July 5, 2005

Editorial Note:

This article aims at adding the term, Enemy Combatant, to the Al-Jazeerah Conflict Terminology list. More input from readers is welcome if it adds new elements.

1. A proposed definition by Hassan El-Najjar:

The term, Enemy Combatant, is used by the Bush administration to refer to a person designated by the US President as an enemy fighter, even if he/she is not a member of an army, like Guantanamo prisoners. The term also applies to US citizens, like Padilla. The US courts ruled in 2004 that even if a person is classified as such, he/she could have access to federal courts, which means the right to an attorney, due process, and a trial.

2. Another view by Ronald Douglas Kennedy

Enemy Combatant "is a person designated by the US President as an enemy not a member of a Country's Political Standing Army" But as a combatant of a Civil Militia or Militias in opposition to U.S. Foreign Military War Making. Whether he/she is engaged in resistance to combat operations in their home country or outside. Once a person is classified as such, he/she is denied legal rights, including an attorney, due process, or a trial. US Citizens are termed as Traitors. And have due process rights as called out in the US Constitution. The United States Congress is presently looking at what Rights and Laws should Enemy Militia Combatants be Jugged by. The US Congress sets the Laws for America Not the President or the Military.

For what the Administration will be required to do by the Court, see http://www.chargepadilla.org/ 

The Supreme Court looked at the Hamdi/Padilla matter. The Case was dismissed without hearing the Facts as the case "Was brought on the wrong Jurisdiction" The court did state "That the President doesn't have a blank check" The Court will make it's ruling after the case is properly re-filed and appealed back up to the Supreme Court.

The 5th Amendment to the Constitution does give the right to detention stating "or in the militia" I believe the President & Feds are looking at Padilla as being in a Militia. But it is not an American Militia. He is a US Traitor first. And his Constitutional Guaranteed Rights to Trial will be upheld by the Supreme Court. And one day he will be tried as a Traitor. Also the Bush Administration has stated regarding Military Tribunals "that no American Citizens would be subject to trial by that method"

It also is agreed if a person is held by American Government Personnel, he/she comes under American law. The US Congress is looking at hearings and New Laws to make clear the handling of Enemy Combatants. It will be interesting to see how they handle the turning of these folks over to other Countries for Questioning?