Mr. Chairman, what we use to protect American citizens is our criminal law. If bin Laden arrives in the United States, he has already been indicted. If someone smashes an airplane into a building, I suggest they be arrested for murder. What defends us from terrorists; how do we deal with mass murderers? We arrest them. Why do we need instead to use this new doctrine of enemy combatant? To say that our only choice is to abdicate to the executive branch determining who has committed a wrong and what wrongs justify incarceration, or we have to incarcerate no one ignores the criminal law as we know it. Yes, those who commit crimes should be arrested and detained, not under the doctrine of enemy combatancy, but under the doctrine of criminal law.
Wendy Sherman: “Mr. Chairman, what we use to protect American citizens is our criminal law. If bin Laden arrives in the United States…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the use of criminal law versus the doctrine of enemy combatant in addressing terrorism.
Share
More from Wendy Sherman
This bill, H.R. 1713, encourages more permanent, coordinated communications between those who focus on agriculture and our national security experts at CFIUS. I commend the gentleman from Oklahoma for his work on the committee on so many…
I don’t think it is possible to get a deal with Iran where they literally dismantle their program, give up their enrichment, even though that would be ideal.
He believes it ideologically. He believes it historically, and I don’t think he will settle for anything other than a chance to ultimately take all of (Ukraine).
I don’t think it is possible to get a deal with Iran where they literally dismantle their program, give up their enrichment, even though that would be ideal.





