What am I saying? No, it wouldn’t. Kidnapping Americans is about as safe a venture for terrorists as any other. Apparently there are countries out there that take kidnapping seriously, and would insert a special forces team to get their citizens out of there. The US hasn’t been in that group of countries for several years.

Of course, you asked about countries detaining American citizens. Well, if there were some reason to believe the Americans truly were “unlawful combatants” (say Israel detaining pro-Hamas Americans, or perhaps something similar to the US detaining Australian Al Quaeda agents in Guatanamo), then nothing would happen. If there were little or no reason to believe the Americans were actually bad, then there would be speeches and potential diplomatic action, and then … nothing (probably). Ford sent Marines to Grenada, and Carter talked with Iran, but wouldn’t expect much serious action to handle such circumstances today.

Do I agree with this policy? No, but I realize it exists.

What if country X (in a war with country Y) starts detaining US citizens, for example aid workers, saying they were plotting an attack on country X or aiding country Y. Labeling them “enemy combatants” and holding them indefenitly, without legal respresentation or trial.

They support the Democratic Justice Fund, a joint venture of the Tides Foundation and billionaire hate-monger George Soros. The Democratic Justice Fund seeks to ease restrictions on Muslim immigration from “terrorist” states. They support the Council for American-Islamic Relations, whose leaders are known to have close ties to the terrorist group, Hamas. They support the National Lawyers Guild, organized as a communist front during the Cold War era. One of their attorneys, Lynne Stewart, has been arrested for helping a client, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, communicate with terror cells in Egypt. He is the convicted mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

They support the “Barrio Warriors,” a radical Hispanic group whose primary goal is to return all of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas to Mexico. Aiding and supporting our enemies is not good for America, regardless of your political views.
If voters will open their eyes, educate themselves and see the real Teresa Heinz Kerry, they will not appreciate her position as ultra rich fairy godmother of the radical left. They will not want to imagine her laying her head on a pillow each night inches away from the President of the United States.

/* If you are under the misimpression that the government can throw a person in jail for any significant period (think days or weeks, not months) of time without access to counsel, and without a hearing, you are very, very, very badly misinformed.
*/

As we all know, the Padilla case was reviewed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court described the facts of the case:

Respondent Padilla, a United States citizen, was brought to New York for detention in federal criminal custody after federal agents apprehended him while executing a material witness warrant … in connection with its grand jury investigation into the September 11, 2001, al Qaeda terrorist attacks. While his motion to vacate the warrant was pending, the President issued an order to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld designating Padilla an �enemy combatant� and directing that he be detained in military custody. … His counsel then filed in the Southern District a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. � 2241 which, as amended, alleged that Padilla�s military detention violates the Constitution,

Instead of dealing with the actual question, the Supreme Court found some legal technicalities to send the case back down to a lower court. However, the Hamdi ruling makes it possible for Padilla to get some sort of process to determine if he is actually an enemy combatant. If he is, there would be no need to link him with a crime, just as there is no need to link POWs with any crime. I understood that much from the Hamdi ruling. Perhaps you read it differently:

The capture and detention of lawful combatants and the capture, detention, and trial of unlawful combatants, by �universal agreement and practice,� are �important incident[s] of war.� … The purpose of detention is to prevent captured individuals from returning to the field of battle and taking up arms once again. …

There is no bar to this Nation�s holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant. In Quirin, one of the detainees, Haupt, alleged that he was a naturalized United States citizen. … We held that �[c]itizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of � the law of war.� … While Haupt was tried for violations of the law of war, nothing in Quirin suggests that his citizenship would have precluded his mere detention for the duration of the relevant hostilities. …

We therefore hold that a citizen-detainee seeking to challenge his classification as an enemy combatant must receive notice of the factual basis for his classification, and a fair opportunity to rebut the Government�s factual assertions before a neutral decisionmaker. … These essential constitutional promises may not be eroded. …

We think it unlikely that this basic process will have the dire impact on the central functions of warmaking that the Government forecasts. The parties agree that initial captures on the battlefield need not receive the process we have discussed here; that process is due only when the determination is made to continue to hold those who have been seized.

A few comments to lengthen an already-long post:

• Court rulings can be divided into “holding” and “dicta.” Dicta is just commentary, but holding gets a little tricky. Once upon a time, “holding” meant the actual ruling (eg., the part I bolded that started “We held that …”). Some lawyers today think it means what the court is most likely to do in a future case (eg., the other parts I bolded). Either definition implies that the Supreme Court (which already had Padilla on its mind) has hinted were it would go regarding the citizenship issue.
• This implies that the Supreme Court believes that it is possible to hold somebody indefinitely without charge (just use military law, which allows detention to prevent people from doing Bad Things). However, the Court did decide to create some sort of hearing. I think this was a form of judicial activism (read the dissenting opinions for the issues Congress should have taken into account when setting up the necessary hearing system), but it is legally-binding, and will be important if Padilla or a similar case gets to the Court again.
• As you’ve probably noticed, Padilla wasn’t captured on a recognizable battlefield. The court hasn’t hinted where it will go on answering that question. That is an issue that hasn’t been resolved.

/* I wonder what will happen when other countries start holding US Citizens as �enemy combatant�, and treating them the same way the US has been treating �enemy combatants� the last couple of years.
*/

Good question. Which current US enemies were likely to follow the Geneva Conventions? And wasn’t one of the requirements to be an enemy combatant failure to belong to a regular (and recognizable) army?

/* The US allready passed a law that allows the US government to save US citizens from extradition to the International Criminal Court using �any necessary action�, which has been described as the �The Hague Invasion Act�.
*/

Yes, it has. It has also taken advantage of a part of the treaty that allows signatories, such as France, to enter agreements with non-signatories, such as the US, to not extradite the citizens of the non-signatory (in this case, US citizens) for trial under the ICC.

I’m not arguing that what happened to Padilla was “abnormal.” I’m arguing that it was absurd and attacked the basic building block of all of our other rights. If you are under the misimpression that the government can throw a person in jail for any significant period (think days or weeks, not months) of time without access to counsel, and without a hearing, you are very, very, very badly misinformed.

What in Gawd’s name could you possibly be talking about?

If as individuals we cannot adapt to changing cirumstances, the personal consequences, financial, social and psychological are often significant. Failing to treat past investments as sunk costs, we “throw good money after bad”. Failing to accept that our position might have been defensible on the basis of what we knew, but new evidence, or changing circumstances can make us look like fanatics, and make us awkward to be around. Inability to adapt in the face of changes around us is associated with triggers of depression.

But in an extremely complex world, that does change profoundly very quickly, the inability of individuals of influence, political parties, and other powerful institutions to adapt to those changes is potentially catastrophic.