U.S. Drops Use of "Enemy Combatant" (updated)

[ProSense]

U.S. Drops Use of "Enemy Combatant"

By David Kurtz

Announcement just out from the Justice Department:

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

Updated to add:

Obama administration withdraws ‘enemy combatant’ definition.

Today, the Obama Justice Department abandoned one of the most prominent phrases of the Bush administration — “enemy combatant.” In a filing with the DC District Court, the DoJ said that it would no longer use the term and asserted a new standard for the government’s authority to hold detainees at Gitmo. The Obama administration is still claiming that it has the authority to hold prisoners there, but it will now be based on authority from Congress and the international laws of war. The Bush administration claimed that the president could unilaterally hold prisoners without charge.

[Eric J in MN]

1. We should change the Geneva Conventions to limit how long anyone can be held...

...whether as a "POW" or "an enemy combatant" or any other term, when he hasn't been tried and convicted by a civilian court.

I want POWs released within a year.

[geek tragedy]

6. So, we should have started releasing Japanese prisoners

in 1943?

No, the GC is properly drafted the way it is.

[ProSense]

2. From SCOTUSBlog

Since July 2004, the Bush Administration had been using the designation “enemy combatant” as the basis for holding individuals at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Here is how that Administration defined the concept in a court filing in January, shortly before leaving office: ”At a minimum, the President’s power to detain includes the ability to detain as enemy combatant those individuals who were part of, or supporting, forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners and allies. This includes individuals who were part of or directly supporting Taliban, al-Qaida, or associated forces, that are engaged in hostilities against the United States, its coalition partners or allies. This also includes any persons who have committed a belligerent act or supported hostilities in aid of enemy forces.”

Here is the definition of detention authority, without the label “enemy combatant,” that the Obama Administration outlined Friday: “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 peson who has committed a belligerent act, or has directly supported hostilities, in aid of such enemy armed forces.”

Here are the differences:

First, the new version requires proof of “substantial” support of Taliban or Al-Qaeda forces, while the former version required proof of “direct” support of such forces.

Second, the new version requires proof of “substantial” support of forces (other than Taliban or Al-Qaeda) engaged in hostilities against the U.S. and its coalition partners, while the former version only required “support.”

And, third, the new version applies to a person who “directly” supported hositilities to aid enemy armed forces, while the former version only required “support” of such hostilities, and did not include the word “armed” as to enemy forces who had been supported.

link

[lunatica]

3. I wish they would drop the terms First Responders and evildoers too

I just cringe at the distinctly mediocre nosedive our language has taken in the last 8 years. I want to ban Bushspeak as part of our everyday language! I want to ban Bush!:nuke:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

5. axis of evil was 'grating'

do you remember when we were supposed to hate the French

[Tigress DEM]

7. BAN BUSHSPEAK! YES! I agree.

I'd just like to find a way to get *ush into the ICC for his war crimes. Big Dickie too and ol' Rummy.

[Cha]

4. Baby steps are moving

steadily along.

[symbolman]

8. I also want the word "Arrest" to be reinstated..

This bullshit "detainee" is an illegal, bastardized version of "arrest" with too many arguable grey areas legally..

If you are "arrested" they better have a damn good reason, but to "detain" someone borders on kidnapping..

And I still don't like the term "Belligerent" either, my fucking 4 year old gets "belligerent", and I've been that way most of my life.. It seems out of context in this messy jargon to me...

Just my two cents :)