U.S. drops "enemy combatant" as basis for detention

[sabra]

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON, March 13 (Reuters) - The Obama administration dropped the term "enemy combatant" and incorporated international law on Friday as its basis for holding terrorism suspects at Guantanamo prison while it works to close the facility.

The U.S. Justice Department said it had filed court papers outlining its break from Bush administration detention standards, and said only those who provided "substantial" support to al Qaeda or the Taliban would be considered detainable.

"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," U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement.

"The change we've made today meets each of those standards and will make our nation stronger."

Read more: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N13459303.htm

[geek tragedy]

1. "But Obama is just like Bush."

/DUWhinyAssTittyBabyBrigade

[defendandprotect]

10. We don't need a president to simply be better than the criminal Bush . . .

better than criminals who have attempted to return to perpetual wars for profit ---

We need a president who will prosecute those who have violated our laws no matter

how high their office.

Return to progressive taxation and reinstitute New Deal regulations on the financial

markets ---

Give us confidence in our DOJ -- not keep on 51 Bush AG's ...

Hold torturers responsibile for their crimes--!!!

[caseymoz]

18. I believe he'll do all of that.

I mean dropping "enemy combatant" as a reason for incarceration is HUGE. Don't under-estimate the significance of it.

However, court cases his DOJ is pushing on some of Bush's policies, like use of the Secrecy Privilege to dismiss whole court cases, raise my hackles. I hope the intent on these is to have them declared illegal from every possible angle. If so, however, he's gambling.

[defendandprotect]

32. "Enemy combatant" is as BS as the Nuremberg Laws . . .

Embracing "law" like that simply makes crime and torture legal . . .

Moving on Single Payer Health Care would be "HUGE" . . .

Moving on prosecuting the Bush/Cheney regime would be huge . . .

Ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan now would be huge . . .

[caseymoz]

36. First, our government can't make torture legal.

It is illegal by international treaty, the Convention Against Torture, and it's illegal by Federal statute. Bush didn't make torture legal, he ignored the law. The penalty for torture resulting in death is 20 years to life.

I don't know what you meant in your title, how would embracing international laws against crime and torture actually make crime and torture legal. Please clarify that.

The other things you cited would be huge, too. I think he's going to do two out of three. However, I think our government denouncing Bush's excuse for imprisoning people without charges-- and torturing them, is a very significant. "Enemy Combatant" is an evasive term meant to put detainees into legal limbo-- since they're not criminals, so they had no rights or guarantees under the Constitution, and they weren't POW's so they had no rights to humane treatment under those laws. The term was adopted specifically to deprive detainees of rights, just like Gitmo was chosen because it was thought that courts had no jurisdiction there.

That Obama is not going to continue using that term, and his administration says it will comply now with international law-- now that is very significant, as long as the administration isn't just changing the name.

I'll retract HUGE since it offends you. How is it if I say "Very significant?"

[defendandprotect]

38. I mean that in the same sense that . . ..

Martin Luther King commented on racist law/Nuremberg Law in Germany ...

that racism was made "legal."

However, Yoo certainly tried to make TORTURE "legal" --- many in the administration did.

"Enemy Combatant" was not only a threat to prisoners, usually foreigners -- but to

any American as well!

Nothing wrong with the word "huge" . . .

[caseymoz]

39. Googling has clarified things.

I forgot that the Nazis had enacted laws called the Nuremberg Laws. How stupid of me! I couldn't make sense of what you wrote because I thought you meant legal precedents that were enacted resulting from the Nuremberg trials! A far different thing. This puts your whole post into a much different tone.

Yoo tried to play semantic games to claim some legal cover for the executive branch. He was there to try to evade the laws the President was obligated to follow. The fact is, the Executive Branch isn't supposed to make anything legal. It is supposed to carry out the laws enacted by Congress. It can't make law, but it can interpret law, and it can act on issues where Congress has asserted no laws to follow.

In theory, that's the way it's supposed to work, but in fact, Bush was a renegade president. He broke both clauses in his oath of office, and as the only President who has done that, he was in fact the worse President ever.

What you say about American citizens is correct: the purpose of the Jose Padilla "case" was to make assure that it would apply to Americans.

[defendandprotect]

40. Unfortunately, none of those things apply when we have corruption of government . .. .

as we've just had with Bush/Cheney/Executive Branch, DOJ -- and every

other agency.

And, the "Signing Statements" are another sign of that corruption . . .

It is Congress' responsibility to see that the legislation/laws they pass

are "carried out with the spirit and intent with which they are passed."

In fact, I have absolutely no doubt that Bush/Cheney were criminals, torturers,

murderers.

Thanks for checking what I was saying . . . it's late and I forget the exact

Martin Luther King words. But, basically, that illegalities were made "legal."

I probably should have used quotes in the first post --






:)

[caseymoz]

59. Congress had its chance to start impeachment proceedings when Bush issued signing statements.

It would have created a crisis, and Republicans, or many of them, probably would have boycotted the Congress denying it a quorum, but at least that would have brought the question to the American people who would have understood that Bush was refusing to follow his oath of office.

[defendandprotect]

68. Agree . . .

and, sadly, Obama also used a Signing Statement the other day which I thought

very unwise. IMO, it gives legitimacy to Bush's concept of a presidential signing statement.

[caseymoz]

71. Presidents frequently issue signing statements, Bush didn't invent that.

Not by a long shot. Their use goes all the way back to James Monroe. Only Bush issued signing statements that said he wasn't going to follow the law he signed, or reinterpreted it despite Congressional intent, or saying he would enforce only the parts he wanted to citing his own interpretation of the Constitution.

This Wikipedia article is informative about Presidential Signing statements:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statements

The article gives a classification of signing statements into three categories:

* Constitutional: asserts that the law is constitutionally defective in order to guide executive agencies in limiting its implementation;

* Political: defines vague terms in the law to guide executive agencies in its implementation as written;

* Rhetorical: uses the signing of the bill to mobilize political constituencies.

Even so, Congress should have impeached him for how far he went with them. I mean, Congress should not roll over when the executive branch takes more power using something that's outside the Constitution.

It's best to find out what Obama's signing statement said before you judge him about it.

[defendandprotect]

72. Thanks . . . I had no idea that W was using an old idea ....

but to create mischief.

I can understand a "statement" as a comment on the legislation . . .

but not W's seeming attempts to suggest he was modifying the new law --!!!

I've only gotten half way thru the article, but faved it for another time.

Thank you!

[caseymoz]

79. Actually, now that I read the article,

Reagan expanded the use of signing statements greatly. He issued more signing statements than had been issued by all the previous presidents put together. Presidents have used them ever sense, but W used them like no other president before ever had.

Fact is, most of the awful things Bush did can be traced back to his faithful following and expansion of Reaganism.

[panzerfaust]

46. ? You must think we elected a progessive ??

The only thing on your list that might happen is healthcare reform.

And I won't be holding my breath.

[caseymoz]

60. I think Obama will have to recreate himself as a liberal populist.

The reason? His moderate policies, especially on the economy, will fail, and he's not going to win support from Republicans anyway. He'll have to set up base on the left.

However, none of what she mentioned is going to happen immediately. Think three years before the ball starts rolling, with reforms enacted by the fourth year.

[defendandprotect]

69. In fact, I hope we elected a human being . . . !!

[RedSock]

21. ... you were saying?

From the AP (another DU thread):

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration argued in court documents filed Friday that four former detainees at the Guantánamo Bay detention camp who have sued over their treatment have no constitutional rights.

****

To say nothing of the new admin's hearty embrace of Woo's dubious legal opinions.

Same as it ever was, same as it ever was ...........

[geek tragedy]

24. They're right. They dont have constitutional rights.

They have geneva convention rights and other rights under international law, but they are non-citizens with no immigration status.

[Ken Burch]

27. Nobody is saying that.

Progressives do acknowledge it when the new Administration does something positive.

There's no reason for you to be baiting people like that.

[TBF]

81. He dropped the terminology; no evidence that he's dropped the actual

practices.

[struggle4progress]

2. Gobama!

[FiveGoodMen]

3. Hmmm

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3780420

[Echo In Light]

5. "Dropping terms" is easy and safe. The other has substance, and hence is avoided

[geek tragedy]

7. Not inconsistent. Their policy is that these guys have rights

determined by International law, not the US Constitution.

[No Elephants]

52. As stated on another thread, incorrect. The SCOTUS has held that "these guys" have

the Constitutional rights of habeas corpus and due process. It has not yet been asked to decide on other Constitutional rights. If it is asked, no one knows what it will say.

[struggle4progress]

8. Already commented in other threads:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5246978&mesg_id=5247858
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5247323&mesg_id=5247935

[proud patriot]

4. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeee !

:)

[crimsonblue]

6. I'll buy it when I see it.

If anything, the gov't will just ship the detainees to gulags elsewhere.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

9. Kicked and Recommended! About time! . . . nt

[Jefferson23]

11. More on this here:

snip* "Retired Army Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham, a former Guantanamo official who has since become critical of the legal process, said it's a change in nothing but semantics."

"There's absolutely no change in the definition," Abraham said in a telephone interview. "To say this is a kinder more benevolent sense of justice is absolutely false. ... I think the only thing they've done is try to separate themselves from the energy of the debate" by eliminating Bush's phrasing."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090313/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/guantanamo_detainees

[defendandprotect]

12. Good news . . thank you! We need to firmly slam the door on Guantanamo ....

and Torture -- as quickly as possible.

[superconnected]

13. Thank you Barack! I feel like we're in the 21st century now.

So much better to have GW on his pig farm and Obama running the place. At least we have hope now. And we are seeing positive change for the first time since '00.

[sakabatou]

14. It's definately a step up.

[annabanana]

15. I am VERY glad to hear this...

It means there must be probable cause to grab someone in the US

(aside from the ramifications for the detainees at gitmo)

Correct me if I'm wrong.. but wasn't the ability to "declare" someone an enemy combatant the fig leaf that B*sh used to justify black hole detentions?

[wmbrew0206]

16. Everyone does realize that the term "Enemy Combatant" is part of the GC, right?

"Enemy Combatant" is a term used by the Geneva Convention to describe someone on the battlefield that is not in a uniform or attempts blend into the local population and then attacks either civilians or military members. They have rights, but not all the rights a POW has. Example: If a US Soldiers dropped into Europe as part of the SOS and did not wear their uniform, if captured they would be considered "enemy combatants" under the the GC.

I assume this means that means the prisoners at Gitmo with be considered POW's now.

[No Elephants]

20. According to this article, the standard for detention now is not uniformed or not

uniformed, but providing substantial support to Al Qaeda or the Taliban. It does not say whether they will be considered POW's or simply criminals. We have not declared war on Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

[wmbrew0206]

61. Ah, we have declared war on the Taliban and AQ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

[Vattel]

29. I haven't read them recently,

but I don't think the term "enemy combatant" can be found anywhere in the Geneva Conventions.

[readmoreoften]

30. CCR doesn't seem to think so. Since they're the lawyers for many of the ECs, I'm taking their

opinion as the only one that matters. They're the ones who know these guys and their cases. They have not called it a step forward at all and have in fact made a point to tell people that nothing whatsoever has changed.

The Center for Constitutional Rights are heroes--I take my lead from them.

[No Elephants]

45. Do you hae a link to anything that supports your assertion that "enemy combatant" appears

in the Geneva Conventions?

[wmbrew0206]

47. Here you go

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-an-enemy-combatant.htm

It is not a question of whether or not the term is in the GC, but whether or not the Bush Administration was using that classification correctly.

[No Elephants]

51. I don't see anything at that link that supports your assertion that term "enemy"

combatant" comes from the Geneva Conventions. If you see something that supports the assertions that you made in Post #16, please copy and paste the sentence(s) from that link. Thanks.

"It is not a question of whether or not the term is in the GC, but whether or not the Bush Administration was using that classification correctly. "

That did not seem to be the thrust of your post #16, which is the post to which I was responding. That post said nothing about how Bush's use of the classification differed from the defintion that you claim is in the Geneva Conventions. BTW, if you can actually post a direct quote the defintion from the Geneva Conventions, that would be great, too. Then you wouldn't have to bother with my first request.

[wmbrew0206]

62. The term "enemy combatant" is used in the GC as the link I provided states.

If you really care that much about it, you can go read the GC.

The big issues is what category of the GC are we going to classify the detainees in Gitmo under. The Bush Admin said they they were "enemy combatants." It now appears that the Obama Admin is saying that the Bush Admin was wrong in using that classification and the US will not classify them as POW.

[No Elephants]

64. Again, the link you provided does not say that the term is in the GC, nor

does the link you gave support the definition of enemy combatant that you gave.


BTW, your posts put your crediblity is on the line, not mine. Therefore, it's not up to me to do anything to prove the things you assert. You either prove them when asked or not.

[No Elephants]

17. I don't get this. Why limit anything to connections with Al Qaeda and the Taliban? If someone

is trying to blow up a train or plane in the U.S. or to poison our water supply, what difference does it make with whom he or she is (or they) are affiliated, if anyone?

[annabanana]

22. the problem with this term

is that it consigned people to detention without recourse. .no chance to prove innocence

We can always just arrest someone "trying to blow up a train or plane in the U.S. or to poison our water supply".. right?

[No Elephants]

44. I am not sure what you are saying, but you're not addressing my point. My point

was that Obama chose to create a category called "those who give substantial support to Al Qaeda or Taliban" and then to treat members of that category differently--worse-- than anyone else. As a category for that purpose, it seems to make no sense.

[bluesmail]

19. While they're dropping names how about Homeland?

Gives me flashbacks to the Nazi era that somehow has survived.

[panzerfaust]

50. "Homeland" You are correct I think.

For me the term "Homeland" has always brought to mind more connections with German Fascism than American Democracy, being very close to the German "das(?) Vaterland," both in tone and emotional content.

Personally, I do not recall the use of "Homeland" to describe America prior to the Bush Neo-Fascist era.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

23. Who came up with the term "enemy combatant" for use in this whole Bush-Dick thing? nt

[defendandprotect]

41. Originates with military . . .

Enemy combatant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Change of meaning...|See also|References|Further reading
Enemy combatant is a term historically referring to members of the armed forces of the state with which another state is at war. Prior to 2008, the definition was: "Any person in an armed conflict who could be properly detained under the laws and customs of war." In the...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant - 53k - Cached

[No Elephants]

48. Nothing about in uniform or out of uniform, huh? It would be nice if folks didn't post things they

pull out of thin air (or wherever).

So, if you are not a member of the armed forces of an enemy STATE, you are just a garden variety criminal, no matter how heinous your crime. Whether you blow up the WTC or a federal building. Whether you claim to do it for for the greater glory of El Qaeda or El Taliban or El Minutemen or El KKK or El Ayrans Allah or the Tooth Fairy or your spouse or your own self. Whether your name is Arab, or Scottish, or Hispanic or Germanic.

Now, was that so hard?

[defendandprotect]

67. Only if you looked at the website . . . !!!

Unfortunately, I was unable to pick up the full link --

but what I was basically conveying is that the term "Enemy Combatant" originates

with the military --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant

In the 1942 Supreme Court of the United States ruling Ex Parte Quirin, the Court uses the terms with their historical meanings to distinguish between unlawful combatants and lawful combatants:

Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.(Emphasis added)

And, of course, original meaning of this designation is now polluted by the Bush

takeover of the term --

Dangerous Presidential Powers: From Citizen to "Enemy Combatant" --

The term "enemy combatant" has always simply meant someone fighting on the opposite side. Historically, captured enemy soldiers have been treated as prisoners of war and accorded the safeguards and protections of the Geneva Convention, which include prompt repatriation upon the termination of the war.

The Bush administration now wants to change all that, by creating a new category for its military opponents--that of so-called "enemy combatants," who are not considered prisoners of war but rather some sort of international criminals who are to be tried and possibly executed by kangaroo courts set up by the U.S. military. These are tribunals that do not observe the basic procedures of due process (such as the right of the accused to see evidence or question witnesses against them) and from which there is no appeal.

Over 600 such persons are being held in an elaborate concentration camp within the U.S. naval station at Guantánamo, Cuba. This location was chosen because it is an area over which the U.S. military exercises complete sovereignty. At the same time, the government claims that U.S. courts have no jurisdiction over what happens there because it is not a U.S. territory.

The alleged justification for designating the Guantánamo prisoners as "enemy combatants" is that they did not observe the "rules of war." But the so-called "rules of war" were established by the imperialists with their own interests in mind. For example, their rules require that "lawful combatants" wear a distinctive uniform and carry arms openly. One can easily see how such rules favor the occupying imperialists but deny protection to resistance movements or revolutionaries engaged in liberating people's wars.

In applying their rules the imperialists conveniently ignore the privately contracted gunmen used by the U.S. in Iraq, as well as the CIA agents and U.S. Special Forces running around Afghanistan wearing Afghan dress and sporting Islamic beards, as they try to "blend in" with the population.

I also recall a young American they picked up in Afghanistan who they trussed up Jesus-like-on-a-cross -- with duct tape -- and transported him that way!

Besides the undeniable torture, I would suggest that transporting them in boxes 20X20 ...

for even 17 hour journeys ....!!! And, transporting others in planes, blindfolded, diapered,

and being uable to move at all for the entire journey is also torture.



http://www.rwor.org/a/1236/enemycombatant.htm


------------------------------

And responding to the junk you've pulled out of thin air (or whatever) . . .

Evidently, you're still unaware that our CIA created the Taliban/Al Qaeda via Pakistan.

And, unfortunately, I doubt that the PNAC/Bush-neo-con purposes in blowing up the WTC

had any higher purpose than greed and Oil and neocon crusading.

However, the Supreme Court ruling on the original intent makes clear that it does cover

those out of uniform -- spies, as well.

And, I certainly do not consider Bush/Cheny and right wing crony/whackos any where near

"garden variety" criminals. They have committed high crimes and hopefully one day we'll

see them in World Criminal Courts!





pull out of thin air (or wherever).

So, if you are not a member of the armed forces of an enemy STATE, you are just a garden variety criminal, no matter how heinous your crime. Whether you blow up the WTC or a federal building. Whether you claim to do it for for the greater glory of El Qaeda or El Taliban or El Minutemen or El KKK or El Ayrans Allah or the Tooth Fairy or your spouse or your own self. Whether your name is Arab, or Scottish, or Hispanic or Germanic.

Now, was that so hard?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

73. Oh ok nt

[Optical.Catalyst]

25. Step by step, inch by inch, our President is undoing the evil of the Bush regime

After the 2010 election when we have 65 Senators, the Republicans will not be able to stop us. We will crush them.

[No Elephants]

49. Some of it. Some of it he is defending in court. And some of it he is engaging in himself.

[Ken Burch]

26. It's a good step.

n/t.

[No Elephants]

54. Souces quoted in Posts 11, 28, 30 and 42 seem to say it is only a semantic step, at the very most.

[readmoreoften]

28. "New wine in old bottles" decries the Center for Constitutional Rights. Disgusting, actually.

To bad CCR--which handles the case of detainees has decried this as meaningless semantics.

Whether the detainees are called enemy combatants or another term is meaningless. The Obama administration still claims it has the right to indefinitely hold detainees without trial. Pure PR move. Pretty disgusting business.

"This is really a case of old wine in new bottles," the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has been fighting the detainees' detention, said in a statement. "It is still unlawful to hold people indefinitely without charge. The men who have been held for more than seven years by our government must be charged or released."

[Vattel]

31. This seems too harsh.

I don't see the significance of dropping the term "enemy combatant," but if the Obama Administration "incorporated international law on Friday as its basis for holding terrorism suspects at Guantanamo prison," that is a very good sign. Presumably if international law is the Administration's basis for detention, then they are committed to adhering to the standards for detainee treatment that one finds in international law, which are quite high. On the other hand, unfortunately the Geneva Conventions say nothing about how much evidence is required before detention is justified. Bush felt that mere suspicion was adequate for indefinite detention, which is a disgusting position. I hope Obama rejects that position.

[readmoreoften]

35. I hope so too. But I trust CCR more than any politician.

They did a lot to education people after the passage of the military commissions act and the patriot act--meeting with groups in person in NYC. These guys are trustworthy. They have nothing to gain and they're the ultimate insiders. When Obama does something right on the black site front, these guys will be the first to acknowledge it because they are at the forefront of this battle.

[No Elephants]

53. That is a pretty big "if," isn't it? And which international law is under discussion here? We neve

declared war on the the Taliban or on Al Qaeda or on those who give substantial support to the Taliban or Al Qaeda, so we would not seem to be deaing with international law on prisoners of war because these are not prisoners of war.

Under what international law are we detaining these "supporters" in Gitmo then? And what are the high standards?

[Wizard777]

33. The Bush convention is out and the Geneva Convention is in!

[No Elephants]

55. Don't the Geneva Conventions apply only to prisoners of war?

[Wizard777]

63. Yes. Unlawful combatants can be subjected to criminal trials.

[No Elephants]

65. Then I don't understand your post 33 in the context of the opening post. Pls. see my post 56.

[humbled_opinion]

34. .... incorporated international law ....

So now we are detaining people consistent with "International Law". However nothing of substance has changed? I agree semantics is not the answer here, there is more heavy lifting to do. These people have not received their day in court. There is at most dubious evidence against some of them. How many taxi drivers whose only "crime" is to be in the wrong place at the wrong time are still being "detained".

Look saying Close Gitmo, Changing terminology used to define people, reviewing policy procedures and talking about doing what is right is great and a departure from the last 8 years of failed policy but when the rubber meets the road there is still a lot of action required. For right now they get an "A" for effort but that will soon turn to an epic "FAIL" if there is no real reform.

[No Elephants]

56. I think it's even worse than you are saying. What international law does Obama/Holder

claim justifies holding at Gitmo those who support Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Most or all of these people were people we took captive overseas.

When did we declare war on the Taliban or Al Qaeda to justify taking them or their supporters prisoner wherever on the planet they happened to be at time? What were these people doing when we apprehended them that legally justified UNDER ANY LAW our kidnapping them from a foreign country and throwing them in Gitmo?


Until I get a better understanding of those issues, I have to agree with the sources quoted in posts 11, 28, 30 and 42. In fact, I think this is less than a semantic change. To me, it sounds like blowing smoke.

[Wizard777]

66. We went to war with them after the 9/11 attack. That is the Jus ad Bellum of the Casus Belli.

Our war in Afghanistan is completely legal or Bellum Justum. We were attacked by agents of the state. This is where you are getting confused. The Geneva convention deals in terms of lawful combatants and unlawful combatants. The "Bush Convention" created an extralegal classification of enemy combatant. That was obscene because they couldn't define what an enemy combatant is. They just trusted the President to know one when he saw it. The POTUS has the sole power of declaring someone an enemy combatant. Once the POTUS declares you an enemy combatant. He can do anything he damned well pleases to you. Because for all intents and purposes the President will have you what they call dead to rights. As in you have no rights what so ever. Not human rights, Constitutional right, civil rights, or POW rights. We can't do that. Anyone classified under the Geneva Convention as a Lawful combatant that has been captured can be held until after the war or cessation of open armed hostilities. If that is 1 year or 100.

[No Elephants]

70. AFAIK, we never declared war against the Taliban or against Al

Qaeda. We authorized the use of military force against those who had caused the 911 attacks or assisted the 911 attackers. That is not the same as declaring war on the Taliban or on Al Qaeda or on everyone in either group. Some people were not in either group on 911 but may have become members after 911. We never declared war on them. For that matter, AFAIK, we never declared war on people who were members then, but had no knowledge that the 911 attack was going to occur.

Focusing on Afghanistan is not helpful, IMO. We went there (in theory, anyway) because we thought Bin Lahdin was hiding there. But, if he is in Saudi Arabia or Libya or Yemen or Oman or Pakistan, or Disneyworld, it doesn't matter. So Afghanistan is not the issue as far as declaring war. The 911 attack was.

[Wizard777]

74. An authorization to use military force and a declaration of war are synonymous.

Both result in open armed conflict which is the international law defintion of war regardless of what we call it. Congress could have issued a Resolution To Take The Enemies Warm Fuzzies And Give Them Cold Pricklies. If that mainfests as open armed conflict. Under international law it is a declartion of war and the state of war exists.

[No Elephants]

75. Yes, I know they are synonymous. I was not debating whether we had declared war or not, but on WHOM

we had declared it. 911 attackers, not the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Here is the bulk of that post again so that you can focus on that point, now that you are clear that I was not splitting hairs over military force or war. Please focus on the parties.

We authorized the use of military force against those who had caused the 911 attacks or assisted the 911 attackers. That is not the same as declaring war on the Taliban or on Al Qaeda or on everyone in either group. Some people were not in either group on 911 but may have become members after 911. We never declared war on them. For that matter, AFAIK, we never declared war on people who were members then, but had no knowledge that the 911 attack was going to occur.

Focusing on Afghanistan is not helpful, IMO. We went there (in theory, anyway) because we thought Bin Lahdin was hiding there. But, if he is in Saudi Arabia or Libya or Yemen or Oman or Pakistan, or Disneyworld, it doesn't matter. So Afghanistan is not the issue as far as declaring war. The 911 attack was.

[Wizard777]

76. The de facto government of Afghanistan AKA Taliban, Al Qaida as Agents of Taliban, and any country -

that would harbor them. When we first went to Afghanistan. Bin laden was indeed there. But the CIA was prevented from killing him. By guess who. Then he fled into Pakistan. There is very good reason to believe that he is still there. Pakistan can provide for his nuclear ambitions. No other country in the region will have him. Mainly because they can't protect him. The second we find he is in even Saudi Arabia. They will hand him over alive or we will rain hellfire upon them. Bin Laden is just a dodge in a very elaborate, ahem, crook. Never mind the declarations of war and all those other distraction. Just follow the dollar.

[No Elephants]

77. Sorry. I don't believe that a declaration of war should be interpreted willy nilly or broadly, but

very narrowly. We declared war on 911 attackers and those who helped them, not on people you assume would help the 911 attackers if they sought refuge there.

[Wizard777]

80. Ultimately war is a prosecution for violations of international law designed to preserve peace.

That's the part of war you're failing to understand. Any nation harboring an enemy is aiding and abetting the crimes of the belligerent high contracting party. That subjects them to the prosecution also called War. But war is ultimately a prosecution.

[farmboxer]

37. AOL poll of sheep a huge disgrace!

http://news.aol.com/main/obama-presidency/article/obama-enemy-combatant/349063

Those idiot sheep make me want to puke! How stupid?! AOL poll always freeped!

[defendandprotect]

42. Here are some other comments on the change ---

The ACLU's Jonathan Hafetz adds:

While it is positive that the new administration has re-considered and narrowed the definition of an “enemy combatant,” the new definition is way too broad and, in critical respects, reflects a continuation of the prior administration’s wrongheaded and illegal detention policy. In particular, it continues to treat terror suspects as a military, rather than criminal justice matter, and to claim the authority to seize and detain individuals captured beyond the battlefield indefinitely and without charges.

The substance of this change will be proven by how the administration moves forward in resolving the cases of the Guantanamo detainees. From an e-mailed press release from the administration:

In its filing today, the government bases its authority to hold detainees at Guantanamo on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which Congress passed in September 2001, and which authorized the use of force against nations, organizations, or persons the president determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the September 11 attacks, or harbored such organizations or persons. The government’s new standard relies on the international laws of war to inform the scope of the president’s authority under this statute, and makes clear that the government does not claim authority to hold persons based on insignificant or insubstantial support of al Qaeda or the Taliban.

There are numerous detainees held based on "insignificant or insubstantial support" of terrorism, so this new definition should argue for their immediate release. It should provide even more impetus for the administration to step up the process of closing Guantanamo and providing a clear, legal process for dealing with the detainees.

Retired Army Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham, a former Guantanamo official who has since become critical of the legal process, said it's a change in nothing but semantics.

And this . .

"There's absolutely no change in the definition," Abraham said in a telephone interview. "To say this is a kinder more benevolent sense of justice is absolutely false. ... I think the only thing they've done is try to separate themselves from the energy of the debate" by eliminating Bush's phrasing.

But that won't change much for the detainees at the U.S. naval base in Cuba — Obama still asserts the military's authority to hold them. But his Justice Department says that authority comes from Congress and the international laws of war, not from the president's own wartime power as Bush had argued.

Essentially, the Obama administration is arguing that the authority to hold the detainees based on the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. From the e-mailed brief:

The President has the authority to detain persons that the President determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks.

The President also has the authority to detain persons who were part of, or substantially supported, Taliban or al-Qaida forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act, or has directly supported hostilities, in aid of such enemy armed forces.

It comes down to what "substantially supported" means in the eyes of the Obama Justice Department, and that wasn't clearly defined in the brief. As of yet, according to the AP article, civil rights activists are skeptical.

In their lawsuits, detainees have argued that only those who directly participated in hostilities should be held.

"The argument should be rejected," the Justice Department said in its filing. "Law-of-war principles do not limit the United States' detention authority to this limited category of individuals. A contrary conclusion would improperly reward an enemy that violates the laws of war by operating as a loose network and camouflaging its forces as civilians."

[Senator]

43. The ONLY "Step" Here Is Lockstep -- With Bushcheney

Do the prisoners get "Former Enemy Combatant" t-shirts to celebrate?

Holder is quickly earning himself a seat on the bus to The Hague.

--

[No Elephants]

57. If so, Obama will be his seat mate.

[No Elephants]

58. I hope people read this this thread, especially posts 11, 28, 30, 42 and 56, before adding another

"Yee hah!" type post to this thread.

[upi402]

78. " ...old wine in new bottles"

AKA; Polishing a turd


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090313/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/guantanamo_detainees