Arrested far from battlefields, but held as enemy combatants: several terrorism suspects have been arrested in America but denied the protections of the U.S. justice system. Is that fair?

• Position: Debate

DEBATE

YES On Sept. 11, 2001 war was declared on the United States. As hijacked planes struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the U.S. entered a new phase of modern warfare. The resulting war on terrorism is unique because it involves a stateless enemy and takes place on ever-changing battlefields. The enemy operates both abroad and here in the U.S.

All nations at war have the legal authority to capture the enemy. This prevents them from rejoining the conflict and can provide information to prevent future attacks. There are two types of enemy fighters: lawful combatants, those who follow the rules of war, and are entitled to the legal protections outlined for prisoners of war in the Geneva Conventions; and unlawful combatants, those who disregard the accepted rules of warfare, such as Al Qaeda fighters, who do not deserve those same protections.

Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, was detained upon returning to the U.S., allegedly to plan the detonation of a radioactive bomb in an American city. All Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, a citizen of Qatar who was arrested in Illinois, is accused of connections to Al Qaeda and terrorist plotting.

In 1942, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. government can detain citizens and noncitizens alike when they take the grave step of joining the forces of the enemy. Both Padilla and Al-Marri, having joined the ranks of Al Qaeda, can legitimately be held as unlawful combatants.

John Yoo

Visiting Scholar,

American Enterprise Institute

NO Holding terrorist suspects who are arrested in the U.S. as enemy combatants undermines the safeguards that distinguish democracy from dictatorship. No government should be given the power to lock someone up far away from any battlefield...