Obama Administration Eliminates Term "Enemy Combatant"

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: 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.

According to statements made about the change the admin is moving towards reinstating "international laws of war" So it sounds like the exact opposite is what is occuring with this administration as opposed under the GWB admin and what Eisenhower did in the past.

This is a maneuver, no matter how you slice it, to move away from indefinite imprisonment.

Reading more about this story seems to reveal that by removing the term "Enemy Combatant" the administration may have moved closer to removing the authority of the Military Commissions created under GWB to try and sentence these individuals.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 was created to "establish procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission."

wiki

So, how does changing the name of these individuals from enemy combatants to "detainees" impact the MCA of 2006 and the Military Commissions?

Now, does this still sound like simply a name change? Interesting legal questions will be asked over the coming days I'm certain.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: 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.

According to statements made about the change the admin is moving towards reinstating "international laws of war" So it sounds like the exact opposite is what is occuring with this administration as opposed under the GWB admin and what Eisenhower did in the past.

This is a maneuver, no matter how you slice it, to move away from indefinite imprisonment.

Reading more about this story seems to reveal that by removing the term "Enemy Combatant" the administration may have moved closer to removing the authority of the Military Commissions created under GWB to try and sentence these individuals.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 was created to "establish procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission."

wiki

So, how does changing the name of these individuals from enemy combatants to "detainees" impact the MCA of 2006 and the Military Commissions?

Now, does this still sound like simply a name change? Interesting legal questions will be asked over the coming days I'm certain.

Simple enough how they will change government reference that references "illegal aliens" to something new. It is just a change. Until we see any "action" this is really just a feel good. If in 2 weeks we see some actual action I would be surprised.

 

[frostedflakes]

Does the Geneva Convention have limits to length of detention? AFAIK it doesn't, but I'm far from an expert on it.

Reinstating international rules of war would still be a major improvement for a number of reasons, though. For example I think we would be required to let the Red Cross and other humanitarian agencies inspect facilities, which is something the previous administration has resisted. It would also prevent information from being coerced from detainees, especially using methods that could arguably be called torture.

And I'd assume we would have to release prisoners when we have finished our objectives in Afghanistan and Iraq, whereas with "enemy combatants" we literally could keep them detained forever.

 

[palehorse]

Sadly, the majority of you don't seem to really understand the actual legal statutes, treaties, and policies at play here...

This action, taken by itself, has done absolutely nothing to change the status of those we detain(ed) in the GWOT.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern

Could they have possibly been more vague?

Fern

I guess 'another mechanism to do evil the Bush administration had used was overturned' would be more vague, but still accurate.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Fern

Could they have possibly been more vague?

Fern

I guess 'another mechanism to do evil the Bush administration had used was overturned' would be more vague, but still accurate.

Or maybe "Another status changed that has been repeated since the 1800's was continued today in a glorious display of tradition" might be better.

 

[Starbuck1975]

This is simply a retooling of the existing strategy, repackaging it and marketing it as Obama engaging the issue.

We still don't have a solution for dealing with prisoners from the WoT...whether you call them terrorists, combatants or clowns, there is no precedent for dealing with combatants not aligned to a sovereign nation, and who do not identify themselves as combatants on the battlefield.

Back in the day, you encountered an enemy combatant in civilian clothes, it was grounds for execution on the spot...but we held onto these knuckleheads due to their "intelligence" value...which of course leads to torture should they be unwilling to cooperate.

 

[LS8]

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

Terrorist.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: 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.

We could just as easily demand the same of you. Your posts in this thread are enough to know you're blood thirsty asshole who is quick to abandon our once honored Constitution and laws. You would be entitled to your opinion... IF you were an American citizen... which you are NOT.

Specifically, you're Canadian, not American. I would guess that many Canadians would be appalled by your inhumanity, but if you want to live under a government of murderous tyrants, you can spew your venom on your own side of the border.

BUTT THE FUCK OUT, and SHUT THE FUCK UP! You have no business telling citizens of the United States of America what kinds of horrific crimes our government can or should commit in our names or what we, as American citizens, should do when we learn about them. :thumbsdown: :|

 

[gingermeggs]

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!

You mean the Reagan administration- funding the mujahadin{taliban} and bin ladin- but that was "ok" because they were fighting russian/commies and most importantly protecting the American stranglehold on oil resources.
Oh star spangled banner!

 

[gingermeggs]

and lets not mention who funded saddam against iran.

 

[gingermeggs]

or which company supplied the gas which killed 3,000 odd kurds.
gas job

The provision of chemical precursors from United States companies to Iraq was enabled by a Ronald Reagan administration policy that removed Iraq from the State Department's list State Sponsors of Terrorism

not donald duck again!

it's cute we call nazi's neo-conservatives!

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: 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.

We could just as easily demand the same of you. Your posts in this thread are enough to know you're blood thirsty asshole who is quick to abandon our once honored Constitution and laws. You would be entitled to your opinion... IF you were an American citizen... which you are NOT.

Specifically, you're Canadian, not American. I would guess that many Canadians would be appalled by your inhumanity, but if you want to live under a government of murderous tyrants, you can spew your venom on your own side of the border.

BUTT THE FUCK OUT, and SHUT THE FUCK UP! You have no business telling citizens of the United States of America what kinds of horrific crimes our government can or should commit in our names or what we, as American citizens, should do when we learn about them. :thumbsdown: :|

Oh look it is Harvey again with more spreading of unfounded bullshit.

Btw Harvey I have dual citenzship thanks to my biological father being American(Something I've stated many times before...if you ever actually read posts before your foaming at the mouth replies). Maybe you can shut up and keep your uninformed opinions to yourself instead of posting than running away some more?

Or maybe you can actually grow a pair and stand up and back up your rhetoric instead of running away every time the conversation gets away from something you can't answer with a copy/paste.

Or maybe take a look in the mirror at the animal who would kill based on political ideologies. (I can link to your quote for this again if you want since you seemed to have ignored it completely last time.)

 

[Jiggz]

Originally posted by: gingermeggs
or which company supplied the gas which killed 3,000 odd kurds.
gas job

The provision of chemical precursors from United States companies to Iraq was enabled by a Ronald Reagan administration policy that removed Iraq from the State Department's list State Sponsors of Terrorism

not donald duck again!

it's cute we call nazi's neo-conservatives!

So you think all these things you call B.S. like arming the Afghans to fight the commies/Russians; or providing arms to Iraq to fight Iran including selling chemicals to Iraq is bad and would rather see terrorist fight us, Americans in our homeland rather than having terrorist and all those anarchists to fight it somewhere else? You absolutely sound like BHO who is so oratorically intelligent, but strategically and tactically dumb! I don't know who smoked more, is it you or BHO?

You my friend is a true liberal who can't seem to see beyond your nose. Just like Bill Clinton did after the attacks on US embassies in Africa, USS Cole, etc. . . Maybe you'd be better off staying in the "Marriage" discussion topic!

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: 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.

We could just as easily demand the same of you. Your posts in this thread are enough to know you're blood thirsty asshole who is quick to abandon our once honored Constitution and laws. You would be entitled to your opinion... IF you were an American citizen... which you are NOT.

Specifically, you're Canadian, not American. I would guess that many Canadians would be appalled by your inhumanity, but if you want to live under a government of murderous tyrants, you can spew your venom on your own side of the border.

BUTT THE FUCK OUT, and SHUT THE FUCK UP! You have no business telling citizens of the United States of America what kinds of horrific crimes our government can or should commit in our names or what we, as American citizens, should do when we learn about them. :thumbsdown: :|

You seriously need some time away from from ATPN. You are one seriously angry and hateful person. I'm not sure I can think of one person in this forum that swears, insults, attacks people personally more than you. You are out of control.

 

[AFMatt]

Originally posted by: Fern
So what's the new term?

Fern

Probably just detainee?
This thread has gone all out of whack by now, but the only thing the administration is doing is removing the extension of the term "enemy combatant" to those suspected terrorists held at GITMO. The term itself isn't being "eliminated" as the thread title says and will still exist in it's pre-WOT state, which was basically armed forces from the state one is at war with.

As far as holding them, they have already indicated they are sticking with the same principles. The only difference is some of the ones who dont have a clear direct link to the terrorist groups may be set free. The others will eventually move to real prisons and see their day in court.

 

[Jaskalas]

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

Other than you're releasing them so they can go back to killing Americans.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: 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

How long will it take for the GOP and their associates to start calling Mr Obama soft on terrorism?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: 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.

We could just as easily demand the same of you. Your posts in this thread are enough to know you're blood thirsty asshole who is quick to abandon our once honored Constitution and laws. You would be entitled to your opinion... IF you were an American citizen... which you are NOT.

Specifically, you're Canadian, not American. I would guess that many Canadians would be appalled by your inhumanity, but if you want to live under a government of murderous tyrants, you can spew your venom on your own side of the border.

BUTT THE FUCK OUT, and SHUT THE FUCK UP! You have no business telling citizens of the United States of America what kinds of horrific crimes our government can or should commit in our names or what we, as American citizens, should do when we learn about them. :thumbsdown: :|

You seriously need some time away from from ATPN. You are one seriously angry and hateful person. I'm not sure I can think of one person in this forum that swears, insults, attacks people personally more than you. You are out of control.

You obviously haven't run across Boberfett (look down under your shoes for him).

While I usually agree with Harvey, I don't on the 'Canadians have no place expressing opinions on US issues' statement.

We Americans express our opinions on the Palestinians, on Tibet, on Mexico, on pretty much everywhere in the world.

I don't object when people from other countries who have a better perspective than some Americans posted criticisms of Bush policies - so the other side has the same right.

Good ideas are not restricted by border (nor are bad ones, that come with the deal).

I'd rather invite everyone globally to discuss issues, not limit the participation to only the nations involved.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
How long will it take for the GOP and their associates to start calling Mr Obama soft on terrorism?

Oh I'm sure they're revving up the talking points as we speak. But, they'd be wrong, along with a bunch of people right here in this thread. The plan isn't to release them, the plan seems to be this:

1.) Craft a legal argument under existing Int'l Laws that designates these terrorists as POW's. This is important, because it ends the legal black hole that Bush-era policies have placed these people into while getting the entire Int'l community back onboard.

2.) Dismantle Gitmo as part of this legal black-hole and either try the individuals we can try for war crimes if we have sufficient evidence against them, or repatriot them to their home country (or any country willing to take them).

3.) For those who somehow cannot be tried, cannot be released (or will not be accepted by a suitable country), or who continue to provide valuable intel, we can simply transfer them to a military prison within the 48 until we can sort their individual case out.

4.) Ending torture, reinstates our moral high ground and again brings the rest of the world back on our side. Regaining international support is important for all sorts of reasons, including intel sharing and joint efforts against legitimate terror cells, etc.

You could hardly call this a "lack of a plan."

 

[NoStateofMind]

Topic Title: Obama Administration Eliminates Term "Enemy Combatant"
Topic Summary: Good riddance to meaningless Bush-era terminology

Yeah because the terminology was the problem :disgust: Naming them "fairy's" and still doing the same thing sure is "change". Ignorance is your bliss.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: 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.

We could just as easily demand the same of you. Your posts in this thread are enough to know you're blood thirsty asshole who is quick to abandon our once honored Constitution and laws. You would be entitled to your opinion... IF you were an American citizen... which you are NOT.

Specifically, you're Canadian, not American. I would guess that many Canadians would be appalled by your inhumanity, but if you want to live under a government of murderous tyrants, you can spew your venom on your own side of the border.

BUTT THE FUCK OUT, and SHUT THE FUCK UP! You have no business telling citizens of the United States of America what kinds of horrific crimes our government can or should commit in our names or what we, as American citizens, should do when we learn about them. :thumbsdown: :|

You are one sick ignorant hypocrite Harvey. Obviously you don't believe in the 1st amendment based on the bolded in your reply. I guess you are no better than Bush when it comes to "the constitution". Your pathetic and childish outbursts pretty much sum up your life, don't they? I almost feel sorry for your tortured existance, but not quite. Now isn't it time for you to beat the nurse wiping your chin? I heard she voted for Bush, your cain to her face is just punishment. Get that bitch.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Corn

You are one sick ignorant hypocrite Harvey. Obviously you don't believe in the 1st amendment based on the bolded in your reply.

Try reading what I said a little closer. I don't mind honest opinions that disagree with the way I see the Bushies. What bothered me about RichardE was that he continually referred to "we" as he supported illegal acts of the Bush administration as though the was speaking of "his" government as an American citizen.

He isn't. He's Canadian. I have nothing against Canadians, but when it comes to advocating that OUR government should violate the Geneva Conventions against torture, thus violating our own and international laws, if he's going to make such comments, basic honesty would dictate that he should make it clear that he is not speaking as an American citizen.

The actions he advocates would be just as illegal and just as dispicable if they were committed by officials of the Canadian government.

Get that bitch.

Please don't call me any of your family names. :laugh:

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Corn

You are one sick ignorant hypocrite Harvey. Obviously you don't believe in the 1st amendment based on the bolded in your reply.

Try reading what I said a little closer. I don't mind honest opinions that disagree with the way I see the Bushies. What bothered me about RichardE was that he continually referred to "we" as he supported illegal acts of the Bush administration as though the was speaking of "his" government as an American citizen.

He isn't. He's Canadian. I have nothing against Canadians, but when it comes to advocating that OUR government should violate the Geneva Conventions against torture, thus violating our own and international laws, if he's going to make such comments, basic honesty would dictate that he should make it clear that he is not speaking as an American citizen.

The actions he advocates would be just as illegal and just as dispicable if they were committed by officials of the Canadian government.

Get that bitch.

Please don't call me any of your family names. :laugh:

Read Richard's post again. Dual citizenship.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Read Richard's post again. Dual citizenship.

RichardE's real name is Tyler Horton, and he lives in London, Ontario. He only posted to claim he has dual citizenship in response to my post. That's possible, but he didn't say that in any of his previous posts, and in his posts, he continually and specifically referred to the inclusive "we." At a minimum, I think that's intellectually dishonest. It would be even more so if he doesn't vote in American elections.

You may have noticed that I'm not afraid to disagree with those who support the Bushwhackos' crimes, including torture and other war crimes. There are far too many like him who ARE Americans and do cancel my vote, but at least, they're Americans who would have to live with the consequenses to our nation of what our government does.

Somehow, I doubt that Canadians would appreciate calls by American citizens that their government should commit crimes like torture and other violations of the Geneva Conventions.