JimC wrote:However, ISIS declares itself a state. If a jihadist pledges allegiance to that state, they are an enemy combatant, whose legal treatment legitimately differs from the treatment of civilians.
Who has recognised this 'state'? What country has declared war against the 'state of Daesh'? It seems you're trying to base an argument on international law here; Daesh is not party to any treaties, and doesn't exist as a state just because some zealots call their campaign of terror a 'state.'
If I and five other true believers clowns declare ourselves the 'State of Pains in the Arse' and proceed to engage in acts of violence, our acts are criminal, not acts of war. We don't become a state just because we've decided to call our organisation a state. When one of the members of our camorra is caught, the only legitimate way that the country can deal with him is via criminal law.
Leaving that aside, if a country has not declared war, nor even acknowledged that a state of war exists, then one of its citizens cannot legally be declared an 'enemy combatant' merely because it's a convenient way to circumvent the the legal protections due its citizens.
What you're essentially saying is that the countries of the world should let Daesh dictate the terms of engagement. If they say they're a state, and that their state is 'at war' with the rest of the world, then everybody has to acknowledge that, and give their members status as part of the legitimate armed forces of a state.
Would you care to actually lay out what 'real senses' pertain to defining a member of a terrorist organization as an 'enemy combatant' when no legitimate state of war exists?JimC wrote:And my main point still remains; although hopefully the majority of intelligence and police work that detects potential terror attacks will provide enough evidence for normal court proceedings, it is only too possible that the information received, although strongly indicating a terror plot, may fall into the grey area of insufficient evidence for normal court proceedings. In these rare and specific circumstances, given someone who in every real sense of the word is an enemy combatant, I would prefer the state to act, rather than remain paralysed by laws designed to protect its own citizens and allow innocents to die. So, do not categorise my intent as "let's round them all up and shove them in camps" but rather a nuanced argument about actions required in relatively rare but truly dangerous situations.
You're proposing that a country can and should dispense with the rule of law in dealing with its own citizens if it serves a purpose that somebody has deemed worthy. No matter how nuanced the argument, I consider that unacceptable, which is the reason I strongly disagreed with Obama's decision to carry out an extrajudicial execution on Anwar al-Awlaki.
