No, that's simply being DEPORTED.
If you break a law in Cambodia and are sent back to the US, you won't stand trial or go to jail here.
Extradition is sending someone back to be tried under their country's laws based on crimes committed there.
Yes, by definition you can kill an enemy combatant and it is NOT murder.
You can torch their buildings and it is NOT arson.
etc etc
Yes, due process does NOT apply to MILITARY actions or to people deemed to be enemy combatants and the Constitution makes the President Commander in Chief of the military.
NO
He is a combatant simply by being a member of Al Qaeda, just as every German and Japanese was a legitimate target during WW2.
See the bombing of Germany and Tokyo if you need an example of what risks you take by being a declared enemy of the US even if you aren't on the front lines.
Nope.
You've been trying to excuse this guy because you contest his role in Al Qaeda.
The fact is if he is a member of Al Qaeda his role in that TERRORIST organisation is sufficient for him to be labeled an Enemy Combatant.
Arthur
No its not!!! Its being extradited. Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen agreed to extradite a US citizen to face criminal charges in Baltimore, Maryland.
Richard Arthur Schmidt, 61, was charged with having sex with a 13 years old boy by a Cambodian court and could face a maximum of 20 years in prison, if found guilty. In late January U.S. Ambassador to Cambodia, Charles Ray, wrote a letter to Prime Minister Hun Sen asking him to cooperate with the U.S. request to extradite Mr. Schmidt. Last year, Cambodia extradited 2 American citizens to the U.S. to face charges of having sex with a minor. You are arguing something I know in fact to be true. Extradition is sending someone back for crimes committed at home or abroad.
An enemy combatant is only a combatant on a field of battle, that's international law.
An unlawful combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of the laws of war. An unlawful combatant may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.
The Geneva Conventions apply in wars between two or more sovereign states. Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention states that the status of a detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal." Until such time, he is to be treated as a prisoner of war. After a "competent tribunal" has determined that an individual detainee is an unlawful combatant, the "detaining power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a prisoner of war as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial."
Using the authorization granted to him by Congress, on 13 November 2001, President Bush issued a Presidential Military Order: "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism" which allowed "individuals ... to be detained, and, when tried, to be tried for violations of the laws of war and other applicable laws by military tribunals", where such individuals are a member of the organization known as al Qa'ida; or has conspired or committed acts of international terrorism, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy. The order also specifies that the detainees are to be treated humanely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant
See the part where it refers to TRIALS? Ok, If what you were saying is true then every person who is in Gitmo could be killed without a trial. There is a reason why there is such a thing as due process and why only civilized nations observe that process! And yes I am saying the US government does not operate as a civilized nation, not by a long shot! They're breaking their own bloody laws! And all you and others are saying is its okay because its what the government wants to do and you don't disagree with anything the government wants to do because its the government. That's the kind of sick state your turning into and your founding fathers would vomit all over it if they were alive to see how the constitution was so easily shat upon.
I am not contesting this guy's role in Al Qaeda, I am saying the government needs to state its case in a court of law!!! I am contesting the right of a government to smoke a man without placing charges and observing due process, you know like those butt-fuck despotic tyrannical countries that the US likes to point its boney finger at all the time.
What are you saying that Manning should be killed? Or Assange? Without trial?