[quote=Arraya][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: Then, if I apply your logic, he is an enemy combatant wearing a US Army uniform, correct?
Under Geneva, that makes him a spy and subject to summary execution. I’m not being sarcastic or snarky when I say this, I’m applying your thinking to its logical end.[/quote]
Sure, why not. Go for that prosecution, if you think it will stick.
Of course different cases could be made and ALL the dots are not known. Surely you would need some sort of conspiring, which according to the CIA was not going on. Because they deemed him not a danger to bring up to the Army.
But, you really were not talking legally, though, were you Allan?[/quote]
Arraya: Actually, I was. As far as the CIA missing something, well, Arraya, come on. You’re not really going to use that to buttress your argument, are you? Saying that the CIA missed something significant is akin to noting that the sky is blue. Hell, its almost a tautology.
No, there is precedent here (think Otto Skorzeny’s operatives during the German Ardennes offensive in late 1944). If, in fact, he entered Ft. Hood with the stated intent of firing upon American soldiers (and his possession of two illegal firearms would certainly seem to make that part of the case) and doing so as a de facto enemy combatant (and many of the posters here are making the distinction between enemy combatant and terrorist), then he was, in essence, an enemy soldier wearing the uniform of the US Army.
