Obama Will Not Use Term "Enemy Combatant"

[BigRob]

The Obama Administration has announced they will end the use of the term "enemy combatant." So what does this actually mean? Nothing.

The government says it is narrowing the definition the Bush administration had used by saying it now requires “substantial” support for terrorists rather than just any old “insubstantial” support.

However, the Administration has not defined what this means, and the President still has absolute authority to hold anyone he sees fit to hold, like those suspected of helping the Taliban or Al-Qaeda, indefinitely without charge or trial under the AUMF.

Personally I have no problem with this, and I am glad the President (so far) is maintaining this ability, but for those who railed against the same Bush policy, what do you have to say about Obama on this one?

 

[Pandora]

The Obama Administration has announced they will end the use of the term "enemy combatant." So what does this actually mean? Nothing.

The government says it is narrowing the definition the Bush administration had used by saying it now requires “substantial” support for terrorists rather than just any old “insubstantial” support.

However, the Administration has not defined what this means, and the President still has absolute authority to hold anyone he sees fit to hold, like those suspected of helping the Taliban or Al-Qaeda, indefinitely without charge or trial under the AUMF.

Personally I have no problem with this, and I am glad the President (so far) is maintaining this ability, but for those who railed against the same Bush policy, what do you have to say about Obama on this one?

So basically it’s the same policy… but the words have been changed so the code pink crowd can “feel better” about what we are doing?


It kinda sounds like the rule the schools made about not using a red pen to grade because it didn’t “feel good” to the students, so now they get the exact same grade but it “feels better” to see it done with a purple pen instead of a red one.

Its ok by me too… kind of amusing though

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The Obama Administration has announced they will end the use of the term "enemy combatant." So what does this actually mean? Nothing.

The government says it is narrowing the definition the Bush administration had used by saying it now requires “substantial” support for terrorists rather than just any old “insubstantial” support.

'Bout time!!

Just because there are prisons-for-profits, in the U.S., we hardly need prisoners-for-profit, on top of all the other vigilante-justice we deal-out.​

However, the Administration has not defined what this means, and the President still has absolute authority to hold anyone he sees fit to hold, like those suspected of helping the Taliban or Al-Qaeda, indefinitely without charge or trial under the AUMF.

Personally I have no problem with this, and I am glad the President (so far) is maintaining this ability, but for those who railed against the same Bush policy, what do you have to say about Obama on this one?

Fine!

Can we (also) assume you folks aren't gonna carry-on, like a bunch o' whiney-little-b!tches, if we should get "whacked", again, as a result???

​

 

[BigRob]

Fine!

Can we (also) assume you folks aren't gonna carry-on, like a bunch o' whiney-little-b!tches, if we should get "whacked", again, as a result???

​

I am not attacking Obama for this decision. However, you seem to be indicating that this is the entire focus of the "war on terror" and it is not.

This tool alone does not prevent a future attack.

 

[top gun]

The Obama Administration has announced they will end the use of the term "enemy combatant." So what does this actually mean? Nothing.

The government says it is narrowing the definition the Bush administration had used by saying it now requires “substantial” support for terrorists rather than just any old “insubstantial” support.

However, the Administration has not defined what this means, and the President still has absolute authority to hold anyone he sees fit to hold, like those suspected of helping the Taliban or Al-Qaeda, indefinitely without charge or trial under the AUMF.

Personally I have no problem with this, and I am glad the President (so far) is maintaining this ability, but for those who railed against the same Bush policy, what do you have to say about Obama on this one?

It seems perfectly reasonable to me.

The idea that President Obama was sooo out their in Left field was a totally Rovian character assassination ploy promoted by the Republicant smear factory in the first place!

President Obama is being as cautious getting us out of the many Bush debacles as Bush was careless getting us into.

Set a date & start a process to shut down Gitmo... stop tortureing... set up a troop withdraw schedule for redeployment out of Iraq... set up new better criteria for holding prisoners in the first place... and still have the ability to hold the well known bad actors pending the Presidents decision on how best to proceed.

Is there anyone that doesn't think President Obama will see every last prisoner eventually go to some sort of trial and get a legal conviction... because I sure don't.

 

[Andy]

It seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Set a date & start a process to shut down Gitmo... stop tortureing... set up a troop withdraw schedule for redeployment out of Iraq... set up new better criteria for holding prisoners in the first place... and still have the ability to hold the well known bad actors pending the Presidents decision on how best to proceed.

Is there anyone that doesn't think President Obama will see every last prisoner eventually go to some sort of trial and get a legal conviction... because I sure don't.

You seemed to have missed the point. The point was that nothing at all has changed. The prisoners indicate they are still being tortured. Which of course is wrong, because only 3 inmates were waterboarded way back in 2002. Bush himself stopped the torture. So Obama didn't do that.

Further, Obama has expanded rendition, which is exactly what Bush did with prisoners we didn't keep. So that's exactly the same.

Finely, he changed what they call people caught fighting against US and UN troops. Now they won't be called enemy combatants. What does this change? Nothing.

And although he made the statement that they will require more information before calling someone a terrorist, he hasn't given even a hint as to what that information might be. Which means since it's undefined, he's made a completely empty and pointless claim.

Idiot: "We're going to narrow the definition of 'auto accident' from here on"

Public: "To what?"

Idiot: "Something more specific than what it meant before"

Public: "For example?"

Idiot: "For example it will not be a loosely defined"

Public: "Defined how?"

Idiot: "Hope and Change. You got to believe!"

Now again, like Rob said, this is not a bad move. Its just a pointless move. It is just surprising how idiotic people are that praise Obama when he successfully does nothing.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I am not attacking Obama for this decision. However, you seem to be indicating that this is the entire focus of the "war on terror" and it is not.

This tool alone does not prevent a future attack.

Absolutely!!! It has the OPPOSITE-affect!!!


​

 

[BigRob]

Absolutely!!! It has the OPPOSITE-affect!!!


​

Terror recruiting was going along fine long before either of these places were being used. How do you explain that?

In 1996, a full eight years before Abu Ghraib was being used, Bin Laden was easily recruiting and attacking American sites.

If you argue that it is solely about Iraq, that overlooks every political and military element in the country, and attempts to dumb it down to simply saying "Abu Ghraib." Just because it happened and you can point to it does not translate into meaning that is the cause of insurgent recruiting.

There is always something they can point to in an attempt to gain a following. If Abu Ghraib had never happened, the situation in Iraq would be no different today than it already is.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Terror recruiting was going along fine long before either of these places were being used. How do you explain that?

I never try to explain one o' your factoids.....especially when you provide no proof.....as usual.


​

 

[The Scotsman]

Now again, like Rob said, this is not a bad move. Its just a pointless move. It is just surprising how idiotic people are that praise Obama when he successfully does nothing.

..........quite right its just soundbite politics.

 

[PLC1]

Making up a new term in order to sidestep a law we don't like is as old as politics. The term "enemy combatant" was invented specifically to sidestep the need to either (1) give those captured on the battlefield the rights accorded to prisoners of war as outlined in the Geneva Convention, or (2) Accord to the suspected terrorists rights that we've stated all men should have.

As enemy combatants, they have no status at all, so anything we want to do is OK.

Changing the term might change the treatment of prisoners of war, as that is really what they are. It should do so, especially since the new commander in chief has said repeatedly that we do not torture.

Let's hope he means it. The systematic mistreatment of prisoners that has been discussed at length on this forum is counterproductive as well as anti American.

 

[BigRob]

I never try to explain one o' your factoids.....especially when you provide no proof.....as usual.


​

Are you telling me that terror groups were unable to recruit before we opened GITMO or Abu Ghraib? Are you serious?

 

[BigRob]

Making up a new term in order to sidestep a law we don't like is as old as politics. The term "enemy combatant" was invented specifically to sidestep the need to either (1) give those captured on the battlefield the rights accorded to prisoners of war as outlined in the Geneva Convention, or (2) Accord to the suspected terrorists rights that we've stated all men should have.

As enemy combatants, they have no status at all, so anything we want to do is OK.

Changing the term might change the treatment of prisoners of war, as that is really what they are. It should do so, especially since the new commander in chief has said repeatedly that we do not torture.

Let's hope he means it. The systematic mistreatment of prisoners that has been discussed at length on this forum is counterproductive as well as anti American.

They are not POW's and are not entitled to Geneva protections as such. Calling them POW's would be a mistake. The Geneva Conventions spell out what people must do in order to be protected under them. No one we are fighting has done any of it.

So far, changing the title will do nothing, since the President still has the power to do whatever he wants. Obama has not changed anything.

Further, we have not really mistreated prisoners. Are there some examples? Sure, but it is not a policy of the US.

 

[PLC1]

They are not POW's and are not entitled to Geneva protections as such. Calling them POW's would be a mistake. The Geneva Conventions spell out what people must do in order to be protected under them. No one we are fighting has done any of it.

So far, changing the title will do nothing, since the President still has the power to do whatever he wants. Obama has not changed anything.

Further, we have not really mistreated prisoners. Are there some examples? Sure, but it is not a policy of the US.

There are many outrageous examples, whether or not anyone wants to admit that such mistreatment is a policy.

 

[BigRob]

There are many outrageous examples, whether or not anyone wants to admit that such mistreatment is a policy.

We go out of our way to not mistreat people. If it was policy as your claim, why even bother prosecuting those that carried it out?