Padilla and Nurnberg
Dec. 5th, 2005 02:45 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thedarkagesI've been following the Padilla case on SCOTUSBlog, and I can't help but note a parallel which runs into my recurrent fantasy that someday, George W. Bush will be tried for war crimes in the Hague. The "enemy combatant" designation is intended to strip a class of people who would ordinarily be protected by civil or international law of those protections, to wit, their human rights. Back when I read some of the Nurnberg Laws, it seemed as though this was their precise intention: to create a class of people who had no rights, human or otherwise. If the designation of "enemy combatant" is broadened beyond Mr. Padilla and the current Guantanamo prisoners, the parallel becomes even more precise.
The Government is making a case for this designation, a case with which its allies in civil society agree. How can this be debated politely? How can this be debated at all?
The Government is making a case for this designation, a case with which its allies in civil society agree. How can this be debated politely? How can this be debated at all?
