This term is used by the United States to describe a person whom has been designated by the President of the United States as such. The President can designate any person, regardless of whether they have committed a crime, an Enemy Combatant. Once labeled in this way, this person's rights are restricted contrary to the normal laws of the United States. For example, an American citizen could be detained without any charge, trial, or access to a lawyer which their justice system demands.

The term originated, it seems convincingly likely, in 2002, during the administration of the current president, Republican George W. Bush. The term was applied first, at least publicly, to Mr. Jose Padilla, an American citizen who is accused, but not criminally charged, with plotting to detonate a radioactive dirty bomb in Washington, within the District of Columbia in concert with the well-known al-Qaeda terrorist organization. The term is not in the U.S. constitution, the U.S. laws passed by Congress, the U.S. Federal regulations, or any Supreme Court decisions.

Once his alleged plot was uncovered and he was placed under arrest and searched, he was first in the custody and under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Justice, but then after consulting the White House Counsel Judge Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General John Ashcroft, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld the President elected to use his constitutional Commander-in-Chief powers to declare Padilla an enemy combatant and have him moved to a Department of Defense jail. He was denied contact with his family, attorneys, and others.

His mother worried and his attorney filed court papers repeatedly arguing for at least a visit with her client and at most his release, citing the fact that he was never charged with behaving criminally. Eventually, the media and civil rights groups, as well as some in Congress and the public began to criticize the Bush administration for denying the young man his constitutional rights under dubious auspices. After all, nobody disputed that there was no actual evidence anybody but administration officials had seen that even painted Padilla as a criminal witness, much less suspect or perpetrator.

After a number of months had passed, the president personally, after consulting with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, and Senior Adviser Karl Rove, decided to go for a walk and allow Padilla's mom to send him small, harmless goodies and a letter. Those items were delivered by members of the military to Padilla days later after inspection.

Eventually, the case made it to the Supreme Court, where all nine justices sat and questioned the relevant attorneys about the circumstances in the case. It was thought that Chief Justice Rehnquist, along with Associate Justice Thomas would rule in the Government's favor, permitting them to dispose of Padilla as they saw fit, as long as they followed other relevant laws and regulations. Associate Justices Breyer and Ginsberg were thought to be on the side of the plaintiff, Jose Padilla, who was suing, technically, the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, for violating his civil and other rights.

The case was watched in Congress, the White House, the Pentagon, and in homes and offices across the land of liberty. Commentators speculated about what it would mean for the Government to get a blank check in prosecuting the War on Terror or what it would mean for the Bush administration to have to operate by some clearer rules and laws.

The ruling was what most would call a "bust". Neither the Government nor Padilla won. The case was examined by the judges and dismissed on a technicality about jurisdiction. This, after a win, on the appeals court level, by Padilla and a preliminary injunction for his immediate and unimpeded release.

It is notable that to date, the U.S. Congress, unlike its counterpart in some European democracies, has not yet passed laws allowing the U.S. Executive to hold possibly innocent people, yet has not forbidden it by law either. So, this enabled the Executive Branch to basically make law and do what it felt it needed to "protect America".

By this time, one other individual, Yaser Esam Hamdi, had been declared an enemy combatant, and his lawyers were also suing the Government seeking evidence, criminal charges, or his release. The nation wondered what would happen, with seemingly no law established in this area, but for the administration's actions.

The High Court accepted another relevant case in early 2004. At this point there were these two most famous enemy combatants, and the 600+ in Cuba not going anywhere in our legal or military system. The ruling was handed down eventually, legal commentators expecting the four aforementioned justices to stand in the same places. The ruling said that the Executive Branch shall be accorded wide latitude in conducting this so-called war, but that the Guantanamo "terrorists" as well as all those held on related charges, or lack there of, in the U.S. may bring writs of habeas corpus in U.S. federal courts. The Supreme Court stated that these matters shall be dealt with on something of a case-by-case basis unless Congress finally acts on the matter, bringing us into sync with our European allies. This is essentially where the matter stands.

See Also

• Unlawful combatant

External Links

• U.S. Supreme Court Reviews Cases on Detainees (http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2004/May/03-611085.html)