Obama Administration Eliminates Term "Enemy Combatant"

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: OrByte
oh snap OC more "self ownage"

from your own link lol!!!

those at Guantanamo will no longer be held on the exclusive basis of the president's authority as commander in chief.

Huh? It is already known that the ones in Gitmo are going to be shifted to our legal system. Gitmo is poison. That is what the new prison in Afghanistan is for.

We are talking about the continued ability for Obama to arrest and hold random people found on a battlefield that claim no national allegience as part of a military force.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
LOL @ people not reading articles for self-ownage.


You might want to read the links I posted. Obama still gets to hold whoever he wants in the WOT.

here I can play the same game too

from your link:

"As we work toward developing a new policy to govern detainees, it is essential that we operate in a manner that strengthens our national security, is consistent with our values, and is governed by law," U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement.

lol self ownage indeed.

You quoted a feel-good quote from someone who stands to benefit from good PR. I quoted actual fact that Obama can hold people with no oversight.


With that, the building of the new prison in Afghanistan for our (whatever new term will be) and the approval of CIA Rendition by Obama, what are you excited about again?

I quote the position of the Obama Administration via a statement from the Attorney General.

I'd say that actually means something more than just PR

Lol!!

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: OrByte
oh snap OC more "self ownage"

from your own link lol!!!

those at Guantanamo will no longer be held on the exclusive basis of the president's authority as commander in chief.

Huh? It is already known that the ones in Gitmo are going to be shifted to our legal system. Gitmo is poison. That is what the new prison in Afghanistan is for.

We are talking about the continued ability for Obama to arrest and hold random people found on a battlefield that claim no national allegience as part of a military force.

oh really? where does it say that exactly?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: RichardE

Who says they are not in legal limbo anymore? It was a PR move, just like the "wait and see with Gitmo".

you are right, a more appropriate statement would be moving away from the legal limbo they were in before.

Until it is decided one way or another nothing has changed. They are simply not referred to as a certain term. It is the same as saying "you can't call illegal aliens illegal" in the end it changes really nothing.

things don't work like that.
I stand by my revised statement.

Its almost like you want Obama to walk over to Gitmo and unlock the gates and say

youre all free! youre all free! yippeeee!

unwinding the policies made by GWB requires layers of legal maneuvering.

Of course they do not work like a one day thing. The changes he made do nothing to actually progress towards removing the bay. The changes have so far been nothing but aesthetic in nature with no real substance.

An analogy might better illustrate it. Say I have you as my slave. I keep you chained up and force you to clean. One day my neighbors complain and say "You can't keep a slave!".

Alright, so instead of slave, I call you my companion. I still keep you chained up and force you to clean, but you are now my companion. Still a technically correct term. I tell my neighbors this and they cheer and are happy I have changed things.

That is what is happening here.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
LOL @ people not reading articles for self-ownage.


You might want to read the links I posted. Obama still gets to hold whoever he wants in the WOT.

here I can play the same game too

from your link:

"As we work toward developing a new policy to govern detainees, it is essential that we operate in a manner that strengthens our national security, is consistent with our values, and is governed by law," U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement.

lol self ownage indeed.

You quoted a feel-good quote from someone who stands to benefit from good PR. I quoted actual fact that Obama can hold people with no oversight.


With that, the building of the new prison in Afghanistan for our (whatever new term will be) and the approval of CIA Rendition by Obama, what are you excited about again?

I quote the position of the Obama Administration via a statement from the Attorney General.

I'd say that actually means something more than just PR

Lol!!

Of course it is PR. What someone says in front of a camera or reporter, and how people on the outside analyze those statements, are two very different things.

Did you believe everything that came out of John Ashcrofts mouth? Didnt think so.

Obama still has a chance for another term. Everything you see from now until the next election is supposed to appease someone.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: RichardE

Who says they are not in legal limbo anymore? It was a PR move, just like the "wait and see with Gitmo".

you are right, a more appropriate statement would be moving away from the legal limbo they were in before.

Until it is decided one way or another nothing has changed. They are simply not referred to as a certain term. It is the same as saying "you can't call illegal aliens illegal" in the end it changes really nothing.

things don't work like that.
I stand by my revised statement.

Its almost like you want Obama to walk over to Gitmo and unlock the gates and say

youre all free! youre all free! yippeeee!

unwinding the policies made by GWB requires layers of legal maneuvering.

Of course they do not work like a one day thing. The changes he made do nothing to actually progress towards removing the bay. The changes have so far been nothing but aesthetic in nature with no real substance.

An analogy might better illustrate it. Say I have you as my slave. I keep you chained up and force you to clean. One day my neighbors complain and say "You can't keep a slave!".

Alright, so instead of slave, I call you my companion. I still keep you chained up and force you to clean, but you are now my companion. Still a technically correct term. I tell my neighbors this and they cheer and are happy I have changed things.

That is what is happening here.

Nailed it. :thumbsup:

And people are obviously dumb enough to fall for it.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: RichardE

Who says they are not in legal limbo anymore? It was a PR move, just like the "wait and see with Gitmo".

you are right, a more appropriate statement would be moving away from the legal limbo they were in before.

Until it is decided one way or another nothing has changed. They are simply not referred to as a certain term. It is the same as saying "you can't call illegal aliens illegal" in the end it changes really nothing.

things don't work like that.
I stand by my revised statement.

Its almost like you want Obama to walk over to Gitmo and unlock the gates and say

youre all free! youre all free! yippeeee!

unwinding the policies made by GWB requires layers of legal maneuvering.

Of course they do not work like a one day thing. The changes he made do nothing to actually progress towards removing the bay. The changes have so far been nothing but aesthetic in nature with no real substance.

An analogy might better illustrate it. Say I have you as my slave. I keep you chained up and force you to clean. One day my neighbors complain and say "You can't keep a slave!".

Alright, so instead of slave, I call you my companion. I still keep you chained up and force you to clean, but you are now my companion. Still a technically correct term. I tell my neighbors this and they cheer and are happy I have changed things.

That is what is happening here.

"There is an awful lot of work that we have to do," Holder said. "There are things, quite frankly, that we have to reverse, policy changes that we have to make."

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: OrByte
oh snap OC more "self ownage"

from your own link lol!!!

those at Guantanamo will no longer be held on the exclusive basis of the president's authority as commander in chief.

Huh? It is already known that the ones in Gitmo are going to be shifted to our legal system. Gitmo is poison. That is what the new prison in Afghanistan is for.

We are talking about the continued ability for Obama to arrest and hold random people found on a battlefield that claim no national allegience as part of a military force.

oh really? where does it say that exactly?

Ill show you again.



http://www.earthtimes.org/arti...ant-at-guantanamo.html

"The Obama administration will now hold detainees determined to have planned or participated in terrorist attacks, or to have provided to the Taliban or al-Qaeda "substantial support," a term the Justice Department did not define but said must be determined on a case-by-case basis."


Translation: Whoever we want to hold.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: RichardE

Who says they are not in legal limbo anymore? It was a PR move, just like the "wait and see with Gitmo".

you are right, a more appropriate statement would be moving away from the legal limbo they were in before.

Until it is decided one way or another nothing has changed. They are simply not referred to as a certain term. It is the same as saying "you can't call illegal aliens illegal" in the end it changes really nothing.

things don't work like that.
I stand by my revised statement.

Its almost like you want Obama to walk over to Gitmo and unlock the gates and say

youre all free! youre all free! yippeeee!

unwinding the policies made by GWB requires layers of legal maneuvering.

Of course they do not work like a one day thing. The changes he made do nothing to actually progress towards removing the bay. The changes have so far been nothing but aesthetic in nature with no real substance.

An analogy might better illustrate it. Say I have you as my slave. I keep you chained up and force you to clean. One day my neighbors complain and say "You can't keep a slave!".

Alright, so instead of slave, I call you my companion. I still keep you chained up and force you to clean, but you are now my companion. Still a technically correct term. I tell my neighbors this and they cheer and are happy I have changed things.

That is what is happening here.

"There is an awful lot of work that we have to do," Holder said. "There are things, quite frankly, that we have to reverse, policy changes that we have to make."

As I stated earlier, vague promises with no substance.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Ill show you again.



http://www.earthtimes.org/arti...ant-at-guantanamo.html

"The Obama administration will now hold detainees determined to have planned or participated in terrorist attacks, or to have provided to the Taliban or al-Qaeda "substantial support," a term the Justice Department did not define but said must be determined on a case-by-case basis."


Translation: Whoever we want to hold.

The Obama administration will now hold detainees determined to have planned or participated in terrorist attacks, or to have provided to the Taliban or al-Qaeda "substantial support," a term the Justice Department did not define but said must be determined on a case-by-case basis.

"As we work towards developing a new policy to govern detainees, it is essential that we operate in a manner that strengthens our national security, is consistent with our values, and is governed by law," Attorney General Holder said. "The change we have made today meets each of those standards and will make our nation stronger.

translation:

"There is an awful lot of work that we have to do," Holder said. "There are things, quite frankly, that we have to reverse, policy changes that we have to make."

which was my point all along.

If I'm guilty of being dumb and believing the statements put forth by the administration you are guilty of taking a simple article(s) and spinning it to fit your agenda.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: RichardE

As I stated earlier, vague promises with no substance.

agree to disagree?

of course it won't be enough for people. The ACLU is the first to jump down the Admins throat. But I can't see this as a bad maneuver if the end result will be moving people into the proper legal channels for prosecution.

And if that takes time so be it. Like I said before this stuff doesn't happen overnight.

And if 8 years from now it still hasn't happened then I will see it all as a failure. And you and OC will have been proven right. But right now it is too soon to make that judgement imho.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Ill show you again.



http://www.earthtimes.org/arti...ant-at-guantanamo.html

"The Obama administration will now hold detainees determined to have planned or participated in terrorist attacks, or to have provided to the Taliban or al-Qaeda "substantial support," a term the Justice Department did not define but said must be determined on a case-by-case basis."


Translation: Whoever we want to hold.

The Obama administration will now hold detainees determined to have planned or participated in terrorist attacks, or to have provided to the Taliban or al-Qaeda "substantial support," a term the Justice Department did not define but said must be determined on a case-by-case basis.

"As we work towards developing a new policy to govern detainees, it is essential that we operate in a manner that strengthens our national security, is consistent with our values, and is governed by law," Attorney General Holder said. "The change we have made today meets each of those standards and will make our nation stronger.

translation:

"There is an awful lot of work that we have to do," Holder said. "There are things, quite frankly, that we have to reverse, policy changes that we have to make."

which was my point all along.

If I'm guilty of being dumb and believing the statements put forth by the administration you are guilty of taking a simple article(s) and spinning it to fit your agenda.

Ok there buddy. Because it would be really hard for them to say "no more holding people at all unless we have evidence to convict them in a US court"

It would really take time?

You are like those people in the first Pakistani strike under Obama thread that said "Well, maybe Obama didnt have time to stop them yet!" "You dont know Obama OK'd that strike!" "These things take time, it has only been 2 weeks!"

There was another one yesterday. :laugh:

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: RichardE

As I stated earlier, vague promises with no substance.

agree to disagree?

of course it won't be enough for people. The ACLU is the first to jump down the Admins throat. But I can't see this as a bad maneuver if the end result will be moving people into the proper legal channels for prosecution.

And if that takes time so be it. Like I said before this stuff doesn't happen overnight.

And if 8 years from now it still hasn't happened then I will see it all as a failure. And you and OC will have been proven right. But right now it is too soon to make that judgement imho.

I think we are going to have too :laugh: We will see how this turns out. I will say though, that so far Obama has avoided actually dismantling any real Bush policies, even with small substantial changes he could have easily employed. People are too blind to see this.

 

[frostedflakes]

This is more than just semantics, what is being proposed is a major change in how POWs are handled. What we had before was unlimited executive authority with respect to "enemy combatants," the president didn't even have to abide by international law. Now we will have a system where Congress handles detainee policy and is required to abide by international laws on POWs.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Ill show you again.



http://www.earthtimes.org/arti...ant-at-guantanamo.html

"The Obama administration will now hold detainees determined to have planned or participated in terrorist attacks, or to have provided to the Taliban or al-Qaeda "substantial support," a term the Justice Department did not define but said must be determined on a case-by-case basis."


Translation: Whoever we want to hold.

The Obama administration will now hold detainees determined to have planned or participated in terrorist attacks, or to have provided to the Taliban or al-Qaeda "substantial support," a term the Justice Department did not define but said must be determined on a case-by-case basis.

"As we work towards developing a new policy to govern detainees, it is essential that we operate in a manner that strengthens our national security, is consistent with our values, and is governed by law," Attorney General Holder said. "The change we have made today meets each of those standards and will make our nation stronger.

translation:

"There is an awful lot of work that we have to do," Holder said. "There are things, quite frankly, that we have to reverse, policy changes that we have to make."

which was my point all along.

If I'm guilty of being dumb and believing the statements put forth by the administration you are guilty of taking a simple article(s) and spinning it to fit your agenda.

Ok there buddy. Because it would be really hard for them to say "no more holding people at all unless we have evidence to convict them in a US court"

It would really take time?

You are like those people in the first Pakistani strike under Obama thread that said "Well, maybe Obama didnt have time to stop them yet!" "You dont know Obama OK'd that strike!" "These things take time, it has only been 2 weeks!"

There was another one yesterday. :laugh:

Yes "buddy" it would be really hard for them to say that not to mention stupid. Try saying that to someone incarcerated for crimes not yet documented and see how fast they get themselves out of jail because the US government screwed up.

 

[Butterbean]

Now the POW's are to be called FOO (Friend Of Obama's) Fighters. With the appointment to DOJ of John Walker Lindh's defense lawyer (Tony West) it's clear where BHO's allegiances and sympathies are. But of course they were already clear to any alert person

 

[Lanyap]

They will now be called "Joe the Plumber".

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
Now the POW's are to be called FOO (Friend Of Obama's) Fighters. With the appointment to DOJ of John Walker Lindh's defense lawyer (Tony West) it's clear where BHO's allegiances and sympathies are. But of course they were already clear to any alert person

Troll much?

 

[her209]

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Thank you, President Obama.

 

[Jiggz]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: Jiggz
I guess in a sense it's good the term "enemy combatant" is now deleted. This means USA doesn't have enemies anymore! Especially when it comes to terrorism (which probably does not even exist except in the Pentagon) since there is no such one state or identified country that is actually in war or has declared war with the USA. We should immediately pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, right the fuck now! And keep on pretending everything in the BHO Admin is peaceful and quiet. This is exactly how AQ grew during Clinton's time from a one man army to a multi-base/multi-nation terrorist unit. Welcome to Change!

Quite possible the most idiotic post i've ever read on here. Everything in bold is completely made up by you and has no basis in reality. It's clear that you neither understand the history of the "enemy combatant" term, or the ramifications of eliminating it. Amazingly, that doesn't stop you from typing about it or being angry that it's gone.

Your conclusion is factually and logically incorrect. Al-Qaeda has been a major network since back in the mid-80s and was not a "one man army" at any time. The BHO admin is actually expanding operation in Afghanistan, against Al-Qaeda, as compared to Bush.

A summariy of your point is that eliminating the term "enemy combatant" will cause the expansion of Al-Qaeda. Please seek help.

I guess you can help me! And your reference from your point of view is??? And that "The Base" or we refer to as AQ wasn't started by a lone man named UBL? And that if we do not treat those imprisoned at Gitmo as "Enemy Combatant" they will be released and joined AQ again? You do not believe that is an expansion of the AQ? Your liberal views has limited your mental faculty to only those that you want to hear within your comfort zone! Why don't you try a one way vacation to Pakistan and travel to the FATA region so you can widen you points of view? That'll help you lot! Or you can just go to Hollywood and smoke some!

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
I guess since Obama doesn't know WTF to do with the economy he has to do something.

That is the perfect perspective for people who keep their head in the sand and dont wish to acknowledge anything outside their comfort zone.

edit: good call by the Obama people to remove the term.

Aw, yes. A term was removed with no leagal ramifications. Now we all feel better that a term was removed.

Everyone hug now....

no legal ramifications?

are you sure about that?

maybe no legal ramifications in the sense that by being defined as an "enemy combatant" no legal structure existed to try and prosecute the bad guys.

Now that they are no longer in that legal limbo our military/government will be forced to do something with them.

hug yourself.

Until they explain the actual difference it is just a name change. After WWII we renamed German POWs to DEF(Disarmed Enemy Forces) then promptly enslaved millions of them to work rebuilding the nations they destroyed. Bush named them enemy combatents. I am sure if you look back through history we have a whole slew of names for these people. Obama will find a new one that will make you feel all warm inside. But the end result will be the same.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
This is more than just semantics, what is being proposed is a major change in how POWs are handled. What we had before was unlimited executive authority with respect to "enemy combatants," the president didn't even have to abide by international law. Now we will have a system where Congress handles detainee policy and is required to abide by international laws on POWs.

If they are considered POWs doesnt that mean we can hold them as so until the end of the war? Translation forever?

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
I guess since Obama doesn't know WTF to do with the economy he has to do something.

LOL, what a joke...here is my giving them a donut

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
I guess since Obama doesn't know WTF to do with the economy he has to do something.

That is the perfect perspective for people who keep their head in the sand and dont wish to acknowledge anything outside their comfort zone.

edit: good call by the Obama people to remove the term.

Aw, yes. A term was removed with no leagal ramifications. Now we all feel better that a term was removed.

Everyone hug now....

no legal ramifications?

are you sure about that?

maybe no legal ramifications in the sense that by being defined as an "enemy combatant" no legal structure existed to try and prosecute the bad guys.

Now that they are no longer in that legal limbo our military/government will be forced to do something with them.

hug yourself.

Until they explain the actual difference it is just a name change. After WWII we renamed German POWs to DEF(Disarmed Enemy Forces) then promptly enslaved millions of them to work rebuilding the nations they destroyed. Bush named them enemy combatents. I am sure if you look back through history we have a whole slew of names for these people. Obama will find a new one that will make you feel all warm inside. But the end result will be the same.

From POWs to DEFs and eventually to criminals found guilty and sentenced (not enslaved) to carry out their punishment.

Thanks for helping prove my point.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: OrByte

From POWs to DEFs and eventually to criminals found guilty and sentenced (not enslaved) to carry out their punishment.

Thanks for helping prove my point.

You do realize when eisenhower changed their status they were stripped of their geneva convention rights? Sound familiar? Secondly it wasnt a few. It was millions. And it is estimated nearly 1 million died in the camps and another 1.3 million are listed as missing. There was no trial. The last of them were released from the Soviet Union in 1956, 11 years after the war ended. They also worked in France, Britain, and Holland.

I didnt prove your point. I dont think you understand the history of renaming prisoners. All Obama did unless he shows otherwise is change the name of these Enemy Combatants.