In criminal trials. Which the bulk of these aren't.As a defendant they have a right to a quality defense. Our Constitution grants certain rights to anybody in this country, citizen or not.
Why do you persist in these falsehoods in spite of continually being corrected? "Enemy combatant" is not a term that elevates, no matter how many times you repeat it.Calling those criminals "enemy combatants" raises their status to that of a soldier. They are not soldiers. They do not deserve that level of respect.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1058603994More hilarity - there is no "honor" in military tribunals. Actual soldiers don't get prosecuted in them - they're reserved for sabateurs, spies, and traitors. If you don't know how the tribunal system works, you should refrain from making broad pronouncements about its "honor.
You are mindbogglingly misinformed.Calling them enemy combatants was Bush-Cheeney wordsmithing to try to put terrorists into military tribunals. It didn't work.
Does the Obama administration still label terrorists the equivalent of "enemy combatants" (although using a different word)?
Does the Obama administration still place terrorists in military tribunals?
Because we weren't in a state of war at the time, which is a predicate to the tribunal system. Jesus christ.We didn't look at Timothy McVeigh as an enemy combatant. We tried him as a criminal. What he did was just as bad as what these "terrorists" are doing, if not worse.
If you don't even understand the fundamental basics of national security law, please refrain from acting like you do.
Other than jobs in the DoJ, you mean.If you educate yourself with the bigger picture it might help you to feel better about those who defend your country knowing that they will win no medals for their trouble.