Obama Administration No Longer Using the term "enemy combatant"

G.G

Member
Mar 13, 2009
67
18
6
Obama Justice Department is seeking to distance itself from the Bush administration by omitting the term 'enemy combatant' in its filing that defines detention of war prisoners at Guantánamo.


WASHINGTON -- Breaking with the Bush White House, the Obama administration on Friday dropped the term ''enemy combatant'' for suspected terrorists and said international law governed the detention of terrorism suspects at Guantánamo Bay prison, which Obama intends to close.

In a court filing in Washington, the Justice Department also said that only suspects who provided ''substantial'' support to al Qaeda or the Taliban would be considered detainable.

The moves represent a departure from former President George W. Bush's handling of suspects as Obama prepares to close the detention facility.

I suppose O wants to paint a new canvas titled "Everything is Roses and Cotton Candy"

Just because he changes certain words that doesn't make these people any less dangerous to us and our safety.

So we are not calling Taliban and Al Qaeda enemies?
Shall we now refer to them as "Friends of Obama" ?

This sounds like another attempt to re-define the dictionary.

Welfare= Tax Rebate

Illegal Immigrant= Undocumented Immigrant

Drug Dealer= Unlicensed Pharmacist

African American= Urban
 
Omnibus Spying Bill = Patriot Act

Colateral Damage = Dead women and children
 
Tax Cheat= Obamas Top Cabinet Pick
 
Last edited:
If you're being legitimately held, you are now either being held as a prisoner of war or as a criminal. Those should be the only two categories. To invent a third category to whom the rules to not apply is intellectually dishonest.
 
Not much "change" here:

U.S. defines its claim to detention power | SCOTUSblog

...It told a federal judge that it is “refining” its claim of detention authority, relying on Congress’ resolution passed after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and on “principles of the laws of war.” It proposed a new definition of that authority, for use as Guantanamo Bay prisoners’ habeas challenges moved forward in federal civilian courts. But it said it may alter its detention policies after a wide-ranging, inter-agency review is completed in about six months.

From the congressional resolution, as “informed by” laws-of-war principles, the Justice Department defined detention authority as aimed at individuals who “substantially supported” terrorist groups or other armed groups, as well as those it directly linked to Al Qaeda and Taliban networks.

The congressional resolution (formally known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF) “authorizes the use of necessary and appropriate military force against members of an opposing armed force, whether that armed force is the force of a state or the irregular forces of an armed group like al-Qaida,” the memorandum said.

Whole thing here.
 
Has he pulled out of Afghanistan? No he's putting more troops there.

Bush was great with words and no action. He aided the terrorist recruiting efforts and did not make US safer. He and Cheney were like little kids who were scared shitless and make up new rules they think will cover their asses.

Calling someone a new name doesn't win the fucking war.

Lame and lamer/
 
Well...given that many of the people interned at GITMO were not taken off a battlefield, but were in fact merely swept up in the frenzy that we created?

Finding a term which actually describes them make sense to me.

Now if they ewere taken off a battlefield, and they were obviously the enemy, I have no problem calling THOSE people enemy combatants.

But that does NOT describe everyone at GITMO.

Apparently a lot of people there were turned in (for money) by their neighbors and they were NOT captured on a battlefield.
 
Last edited:
The conservatives will find anything to bitch about and then point fingers at the Democrats and say "You bitched about Bush and it annoyed the fuck out of me, so I'm going to annoy the fuck out of you!"

My friends, the intellectual prowess of the conservative mind reaches new lows every day.
 
Has he pulled out of Afghanistan? No he's putting more troops there.

Bush was great with words and no action. He aided the terrorist recruiting efforts and did not make US safer. He and Cheney were like little kids who were scared shitless and make up new rules they think will cover their asses.

Calling someone a new name doesn't win the fucking war.

Lame and lamer/


"Bush was great with words and no action" It sure would be interesting to read how you support this remark. For years all your party did was whine about the actions Bush took to keep America safe.

Of course, Bush & Cheney and to make adjustment, this is an entirely different type of conflict, but to call them scared just shows your lack of knowledge.
 
Are they no longer a combatant . . . . or no longer an enemy?

So long as they insist they are at war with us, then I guess we can hold them as prisoners of war.

Then they'd still be a combatant. And if they're a combatant they are an enemy.

A combatant is someone who takes a direct part in the hostilities of an armed conflict. If a combatant follows the law of war, then they are considered a privileged combatant, and upon capture they qualify as a prisoner of war under the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII). If a combatant does not follow the law of war (like terrorists), then they are considered an unlawful combatant[1][2], and upon capture they do not qualify for prisoner of war status.[3]

Combatant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Changing the name doesn't change what they are but it does put a different 'slant' or 'feel' to the enemy. Just like 'illegal alien' is much more defined and pronounced than 'undocumented worker'. The latter lessens what these people really are, imo.
 
Has he pulled out of Afghanistan? No he's putting more troops there.

Bush was great with words and no action. He aided the terrorist recruiting efforts and did not make US safer. He and Cheney were like little kids who were scared shitless and make up new rules they think will cover their asses.

Calling someone a new name doesn't win the fucking war.

Lame and lamer/


"Bush was great with words and no action" It sure would be interesting to read how you support this remark. For years all your party did was whine about the actions Bush took to keep America safe.

Of course, Bush & Cheney and to make adjustment, this is an entirely different type of conflict, but to call them scared just shows your lack of knowledge.

Bush let Bin Laden remain alive and free for over seven years after 9-11. Iraq never had a part in 9-11, and was an enemy to Al Queda. The actions that Bush took had little to do with keeping America safe, and much to do with the Fascist agenda in the PNAC.
 
I'm shaking my head over this. The media has got it completely wrong.

Under international law, there are legal (or lawful) combatants and illegal (unlawful) combatants. Lawful combatants are protected under the Geneva Conventions. Unlawful combatants are not subject to the protections under the Geneva Conventions. What this means is that they are subject to the domestic laws of the nation that captures/detains them.

"Enemy combatant," "combatant," "belligerent," etc. are all terms referring to lawful combatants protected under the Geneva Conventions. The Bush administration never used the term "enemy combatant." It used the term "illegal enemy combatant," meaning that they were enemies of the United States but not afforded protection by the Geneva Conventions.

I'm not so sure the Obama administration is confused by this, but the news media certainly is.
 
Clueless again ? Looks like it..

Many of these dirtbags were captured during battle, armed and actively fighting....
they are not "suspected' anything, they are enemy combatants....plain and simple....
I don't give a shit if the Messiah wants to call them grapeseeds or turnips...we know what
they are by what they were doing when captured....
 
"suspected" terrorist is actually what they are. "enemy combatant" was always a pretend term made up to make taking away their rights more "palatable".

Sorry, but you are incorrect. "Enemy combatant" is the correct term for the opposing military force, and enemy combatants are protected under the Geneva Conventions whenever they are captured as prisoners of war.

"Illegal combatant" is a term that is not exclusive to the United States. It is a term recognized by all the signatories of the Geneva Conventions. This doesn't mean they agree with how the Bush administration applied that term.

I happen to agree that terrorists are not subject to the Geneva Convention.
 
What I'm sensing is a pattern by the administration. They make 'headlines' on issues that were promised during the campaign, the pronouncement always contains a qualifier, tacked on the end. Gitmo, down the road a year, pending studies. This is a rewording more than anything else, protestations to the contrary. AND they actually have opened that rendition door wider.

On the other hand, the 'changes' regarding domestic issues are real. To those who felt he was going to govern from the center left, surprise!
 

Forum List

Back
Top