Mar 15 2009
Obama Administration Drops “Enemy Combatant” Term
The Washington Post reports the Obama administration ditched the Bush-era term “enemy combatant” Friday, but also said it would retain the broad power to hold those terrorism suspects who could give “substantial” assistance to al-Qaeda and its allies around the world.
“The disclosure came in a court filing by the Justice Department in response to orders by federal judges, who sought clarity on the government’s legal justification for holding about 241 detainees at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,” say Post writers Del Quentin Wilber and Peter Finn. “Though dropping the term ‘enemy combatant’ was a symbolic break from the Bush administration, the practical effects of yesterday’s action will not be known for months.”
Officials in the Bush administration had argued for some time that they possessed “a broad constitutional power” to confine any person suspected of terrorist activities for an indefinite period. With regard to detainees held at Gitmo, “the government had said it needed to prove only that the detainees were supporting the Taliban, al-Qaeda or associated forces to justify their confinements.”
According to Wilbur and Finn, the Justice Department said Friday that it would seek to detain only suspects who “substantially supported” terrorist groups and not those who “provide unwitting or insignificant support” to said groups.
“The particular facts and circumstances justifying detention will vary from case to case,” Justice Department attorneys wrote.
The filing affirmed the Obama administration’s view that the president’s power to detain suspects is global and not limited to the war in Afghanistan, as some human rights organizations have claimed.
“Individuals who provide substantial support to al-Qaida forces in other parts of the world may properly be deemed part of al-Qaida itself,” the court papers said. “Such activities may also constitute the type of substantial support that . . . is sufficient to justify detention.”
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said in a statement that, “[I]t is essential that we operate in a manner that strengthens our national security, is consistent with our values and is governed by law.”
“The change we’ve made today meets each of those standards and will make our nation stronger,” he added.
Legal scholars and those representing detainees argue that while it was important to drop the “enemy combatant” term, the overall change in the nation’s detention policy will be marginal at best.
I’m no legal scholar, but I personally thought using the “enemy combatant” term when referring to terrorists was appropriate. After all, we’re fighting a war with these bastards, albeit one that is different from the kind we’re used to. Of course, this does NOT give us the right to torture or mistreat these detainees. If I am not mistaken, this country is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, which says that all prisoners of war must be treated humanely.
I will note again that this “war” is a unique and new creature.
International law is built up around the traditional model of State to State conflict. Nation-States have official sovereign recognition, both from other States and from the United Nations.
Groups like Al Qaeda, Hamas, & the Taliban do not, and it was never imagined that a non-nation-state group like these would ever threaten a country in a war-like conflict. They have always been grouped in with the category of criminal groups like the Mafia.
So countries are bound by the terms of the Geneva Convention, which was, as most of us know, evolved to deal with the State to State conflict issues, trying to keep such relatively civilized - if war can ever be called civilized. I have my doubts.
Al Qaeda is not, of course, as it has no International recognition, no International representation, no recognized sovereignty, and it controls no official territory. So there is no way it can be held to the same standards, even if it was willing to be.
Our problem is that we are now fighting them in a setting more like a theater of war than a civilized country. Their tactics are more like gorilla warfare, so they definitely do NOT fight in ways that police forces could adequately deal with.
So the setting is not one that is favorable for the gathering of evidence acceptable to a court of law, yet we are forced by current International Law to treat them as criminals. Even if we could justify holding them without trial as POWs, exactly WHEN is the war over, and what do we do with them at that point?
They cannot be exchanged for POWs - Al Qaeda doesn’t hold our people as POWs, they generally kill them, or hold them as media trophies, whereupon they are killed when their usefulness is at an end. We can’t put them to death - as POWs that is not acceptable, nor is holding them past the end of the conflict.
But if we let them go, we risk starting the conflict up again, as these guys would just form the nucleus of a new group and continue the war where they left off.
We can’t live with them, we can’t kill them and we can’t hold them for life, either.
What the hell DO we do with them?
By the way, I would disagree with your characterization of the Taliban as NOT being a terrorist organization. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it probably is.
Oldfart,
Da-Mit, I basicly agree with you, thats some freaky shit. But I would add that terms like illegal-enemy combatant only exist as legal slight of hand to aviod compliance with G. Conventions, Convention on torture and such.
Oh and AS,
I’m glad it helped out.
I don’t disagree with the point of their apparent geographical interest, but their tactics certainly come close. It just seems counterproductive to kill folks you should want to support you. Past episodes of “conquering” armies failed because the population of Afghanistan opposed them. One reason we kicked the Taliban out was that they had lost the support of their population. Granted, our own actions have cost us support, but the Taliban has killed almost as many Afghan civilians as we have.
You’d think that they’d want to limit their efforts to NATO and US forces.
Well, it’s hardly worth arguing about - they’re still a nasty bunch of characters that shouldn’t be running a kindergarten, much less a country.
oldfart,
I will take you at your word as you recognize the bastardization of their useage. However to dismiss the killing of thier civilians and suggest thats its not a big deal to them so somehow its less of an atrocity is a bit much to swallow.
Well, my remark about them not being fit to rule a country is, of course, my own opinion, I cannot claim to speak for anybody else! And the proof of my opinion’s veracity is in your link to the Taliban’s activities regarding religion.
Oldfart
I barely reacted at all. Look, I’ll make sure to yawn so as to not be taken as over reacting. I’m sorry if I misunderstood your position about killing civilians being “nothing new to them”. I’ll make sure that next time I react to you I give you a proper butchering, (like last time) kiss kiss old man
Unfortunately, you are correct. There ARE many governments I wouldn’t put in charge of a dog kennel, much less a country.
You’ve hit on a controversial point.
I don’t buy the pure “policeman” thing. In my mind, it boils down to a more long term look at the security of the US, and the markets we deal with, which, one can argue, are somewhat entangled.
In the long run, the security of this country depends upon the safety and security of our overseas markets. We cannot continue to operate a modern 21st century economy and civilization without the materials, products, and the raw minerals, chemicals and metals that are not obtainable in this country. Even our strategic military weapons systems depend upon some fairly rare and hard to obtain metals found in some surprising places.
In addition, our economy depends upon a stable overseas market for the products that we produce and sell outside this country. It is a well known and axiomatic point that war is bad for business, especially if it disrupts one’s market partners’ political stability. It only good for one’s economy if it affects your enemies’ stability and feeds your own industrial complex.
In this context, “saving” a country makes perfect sense if it stabilizes those markets, or allows a new market to develop. The fact that one can also bring a little justice to a bad situation doesn’t hurt, if one can achieve such.
I know this sounds mercenary, and a lot like just having an excuse to interfere where it will just benefit us.
True ’nuff. But I also feel that reducing the number of bad actors on the world stage IS the job is the “First World” countries, because it will benefit us in the long run, as the world becomes more stable, and those folks we help will, hopefully, look upon us with a bit less of a jaundiced eye for overcoming our old prejudices.
I’d like to see the world become a less militarized place, and getting rid of those bad actors is a good first step.
No, it isn’t OUR job alone. Europe, and to an extent, the industrialized Asian countries like Japan also should be involved. The world is great at bitchin’ about the US and its “interference” with smaller countries, but they are strangely absent when it comes time to ante up the troops - and boldly in the front row when it comes time to reap the rewards when the fighting is over. They also like to complain about our insistence at making the rules in our favor then, too.
So they should be there to be involved. Yes, the industrialized countries SHOULD save those that need saving. Not just us, but ALL of the First World, because we can, because it is right.
Is that a “do gooder” attitude? Maybe so, but in the long run, it is in our best interests to ensure that it gets done. A safer, more stable world is a safer place for our descendants, and I like it that way.
The US went through a period in the nineteenth century when isolationism was popular. We learned the hard way that it doesn’t work, and it IS in our best interests to be involved.
And I can take that attitude - I was on the front lines in Europe against the USSR, in an armored vehicle, in a unit whose front line position was less than a kilometer from the Czech border. MY ass was on the line, so I have a right to ask it of others.
Yeah, funny how our “rescues” most often seem to be for white folks, huh? Somehow, the troops just don’t seem to materialize when a black population is in trouble. We just seem to get - distracted - somehow.
Funny how that works, ain’t it?