![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Getting scared on Halloween
Oct. 31st, 2006 01:46 pmFalling asleep last night, something occurred to me. Perhaps this is obvious, or perhaps I'm missing something obvious. I'm sometimes naïve.
Bush's detainee bill sets forth provisions that only apply to "unlawful enemy combatants," right? My question: at what point is it confirmed or denied that someone is an unlawful enemy combatant? If they nab a schoolteacher in Riyadh because of a plausible tip, and the schoolteacher is not an unlawful enemy combatant, won't that only be determined after the rough interrogation, after the secret evidence, after the trial—after everything, that is to say, that the bill covers? Isn't the final verdict the way we determine whether someone is an unlawful enemy combatant, and doesn't that sort of come at the end of the process?
It's like a bill defining how authorities are allowed to treat people with moles on their asses. If the bill grants them the right to yank down people's pants to determine whether they have a mole on their ass, isn't there a contradiction there? What do they say: "Aha, you don't have a mole on your ass, so you are retroactively entitled to not have had your pants yanked down"?
Whom does this bill not apply to?
Bush's detainee bill sets forth provisions that only apply to "unlawful enemy combatants," right? My question: at what point is it confirmed or denied that someone is an unlawful enemy combatant? If they nab a schoolteacher in Riyadh because of a plausible tip, and the schoolteacher is not an unlawful enemy combatant, won't that only be determined after the rough interrogation, after the secret evidence, after the trial—after everything, that is to say, that the bill covers? Isn't the final verdict the way we determine whether someone is an unlawful enemy combatant, and doesn't that sort of come at the end of the process?
It's like a bill defining how authorities are allowed to treat people with moles on their asses. If the bill grants them the right to yank down people's pants to determine whether they have a mole on their ass, isn't there a contradiction there? What do they say: "Aha, you don't have a mole on your ass, so you are retroactively entitled to not have had your pants yanked down"?
Whom does this bill not apply to?
