Obama Administration Eliminates Term "Enemy Combatant"

[DealMonkey]

I guess there's no shady legal cover left for those who want to deny basic human rights from POW's. Personally, I say good riddance. While I have no love for terrorists, those we capture on the battlefield are POW's whether we like it or not and we need to start upholding the various treaties that we are a party to.

Obama Administration Eliminates Term "Enemy Combatant"
March 13, 2009 4:19 PM

One way those of us who cover the Obama administration know it's Friday afternoon is the administration suddenly makes an announcement changing detainee policies.

Today the Justice Department announced it's dropping the use of the phrase "enemy combatant."

The Department of Justice, in a filing with the federal District Court for the District of Columbia, submitted a new standard for the government?s authority to hold detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility.

DOJ said in a release that the new "definition does not rely on the President?s authority as Commander-in-Chief independent of Congress?s specific authorization. It draws on the international laws of war to inform the statutory authority conferred by Congress. It provides that individuals who supported al Qaeda or the Taliban are detainable only if the support was substantial. And it does not employ the phrase 'enemy combatant.'"

"The Department also submitted a declaration by Attorney General Eric Holder stating that, under executive orders issued by President Obama, the government is undertaking an interagency review of detention policy for individuals captured in armed conflicts or counterterrorism operations as well as a review of the status of each detainee held at Guantanamo. The outcome of those reviews may lead to further refinements of the government?s position as it develops a comprehensive policy."

Obama Administration Eliminates Term "Enemy Combatant"

Linkage


------------------------------------
This thread has become derailed by personal vendettas and is locked as a result

Senior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy

 

[Turin39789]

One way those of us who cover the Obama administration know it's Friday afternoon is the administration suddenly makes an announcement changing detainee policies.

lulz

 

[EagleKeeper]

Given the fact that these "ex enemy combatants" do not follow the Geneva convention for identification, how can they be classified as POWs

 

[Fern]

So what's the new term?

And what does the below mean?

The Department of Justice, in a filing with the federal District Court for the District of Columbia, submitted a new standard for the government?s authority to hold detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility.

DOJ said in a release that the new "definition does not rely on the President?s authority as Commander-in-Chief independent of Congress?s specific authorization. It draws on the international laws of war to inform the statutory authority conferred by Congress. It provides that individuals who supported al Qaeda or the Taliban are detainable only if the support was substantial. And it does not employ the phrase 'enemy combatant.'"

Could they have possibly been more vague?

Fern

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Given the fact that these "ex enemy combatants" do not follow the Geneva convention for identification, how can they be classified as POWs

My guess is that they may be crafting a policy around the Third or possibly Fourth Geneva Convention which seems to provide some wiggle room on who exactly qualifies for POW status.

 

[Genx87]

So what is the new term for the same definition?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Genx87
So what is the new term for the same definition?

Pretty much what it comes down too. Until these animals show which state is backing them they should not be protected by the Geneva conventions.

 

[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!

 

[Fear No Evil]

I guess since Obama doesn't know WTF to do with the economy he has to do something.

 

[OCGuy]

They are changing the bad PR term. Nothing is different for the people in Guantanamo and elsewhere.

 

[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.

 

[OCGuy]

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....

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[RichardE]

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.

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

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
They are changing the bad PR term. Nothing is different for the people in Guantanamo and elsewhere.

Except now they're going to comply with international law. Sounds like a step in the right direction to me.

 

[OCGuy]

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.

Absolutely. They are just doing the ol' shell game to hold them.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200...a_security_combatant_5

"The government may have eliminated the term enemy combatant but it is still claiming the authority to detain people far beyond the traditional norms of humanitarian law," said attorney Devon Chaffee of the group Human Rights First

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."


Same shit, different day. But if you want to cheer about a word being changed, go ahead.

 

[OCGuy]

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[OCGuy]

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?

 

[RichardE]

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.

I understand what you are trying to get at. I would like to point out though the difference between action and promises. Obama has promised to change this, but has allowed the same actions to continue. Until he follows through on something substantial besides feel good reference changes than he really has done nothing at all.

 

[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.