Hacker News Reader

Comment by antiterra | Hacker News Reader

Manning was in the military, and the operating interpretation of Article I is that Congress and the President have the power to regulate the Armed forces, the rest of the US Constitution and civilian law largely notwithstanding. Draconian punishment and treatment, while concerning, is nothing new for those subject to the UCMJ, even if the code itself appears to prohibit it[1].

The scary scenario would be the classification of Snowden as an enemy combatant, who would then be subject to military justice. I hope that all three branches of the US government consider that to be a ridiculous stretch of the imagination.

[1] http://uscodebeta.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-pre...

View on HN

Given that several senior US politicians, including at least one who ran for the presidency, have openly advocated the use of "enemy combatant" status at home[1], it's not difficult to see why someone like Snowden might not entirely trust any promise of amnesty.

As someone from outside the US, I found that particular advocacy (and the rationales claimed to justify it) one of the low points of recent years. It makes sense that you might need different rules for acceptable treatment of enemy combatants when you're in combat, when you don't have the luxury of time and calm deliberation that a court affords because people are shooting at each other. But to me, the appropriate response to recent "terrorist" attacks is to treat them exactly like any other threat, assault or murder, and to put suspects/perpetrators through exactly the same legal processes as anyone else. It is disturbing that we are even considering the possibility that someone who isn't accused of any violent crime at all might have to worry about being labelled an enemy combatant and thus forfeit their normal legal right to due process.

[1] http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2013/04/king-mccain-grah...

Heyyy, if torture was "regulated" by Congress, The President and his military commanders, I guess it would be alright?

Would you put money on the fact that they wouldn't do that?

I would. They would gain nothing from doing it, and everything to lose (especially in the court of public opinion). Plus the case is already pretty clear, he's gone and admitted everything anyways. Literally nothing to gain from trying to put him through a military tribunal.

There's 158 guys in cages in Guantanamo that would beg to differ...

There might not be strong enough cases against some of the prisoners in Guantanamo, so holding them there, under their special status, allows the gov't to hold onto them without having to go through all these bothersome limits on detention. Plus there's the argument that people in Guantanamo could be especially dangerous if re-released (not defending this).

There really isn't that sort of problem with Snowden. A videotaped, non-coerced confession? Hundreds of articles sourced by him? How could the facts be clearer-cut? Trials could begin immediately, the worst he could do is pull an Assange-style blockade in some embassy.

They would gain nothing from doing it, and everything to lose (especially in the court of public opinion).

That shit has sailed before it was built.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com