US drops 'enemy combatant' term

[BSmith1068]

From the BBC:

In a break from Bush administration policy, the US will no longer hold terror suspects as "enemy combatants", the Justice Department has announced.

Detainees will instead be held according to legal standards set by the international laws of war.

Under the new definition, only those who provided "substantial" support to al-Qaeda or the Taleban will be considered detainable, officials said.

President Obama recently ordered the closure of Guantanamo Bay prison camp.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7943114.stm

Discuss! Personally I think it is a good move.

 

[Godwynn]

I still fail to see the so called "Change."

 

[Aegis]

I still fail to see the so called "Change."

Really?

Detainees will instead be held according to legal standards set by the international laws of war.

This sure seems like change, considering that's not how we've been doing it.

 

[Trajan12]

 

[Godwynn]

Really?



This sure seems like change, considering that's not how we've been doing it.

No, not really.

 

[BSmith1068]

Here is your change:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a dramatic break with the Bush administration, the Justice Department on Friday announced it is doing away with the designation of "enemy combatants," which allowed the United States to hold suspected terrorists at length without criminal charges.

In a court filing in Washington, the Justice Department said it is Developing a new standard for the government's authority to hold detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Detention facility.

The announcement says the Justice Department will no longer rely on the the president's authority as commander in chief, but on authority specifically granted by Congress.

And the government document says that individuals who support al Qaeda or the Taliban are detainable only if the support was "substantial."

The government said it will no longer have a category of "enemy combatant," which had been an important aspect of the Bush administration's legal construct for dealing with terrorism suspects.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/13/enemy.combatant/index.html

 

[Godwynn]

Here is your change:

I was saying "No, not really." to his "Really?"

 

[BSmith1068]

EDIT: Nevermind I missed the sarcasm there!

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Good. Now if they drop the death penalty, do something about the number of prisoners overall and most importantly start playing more cricket the civilised world may yet gain a new member

 

[Adrogans]

Uh dear god I'd rather be a barbarian than have cricket here.

 

[Formaldehyde]

EDIT: Nevermind I missed the sarcasm there!

That's because there wasn't any?

I still fail to see the so called "Change."

 

[GoodGame]

I still fail to see the so called "Change."

It presumably means that the Geneva conventions regarding irregular troops will be followed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Basically they can apply for combatant status and be treated as POWs rather than criminals/terrorists. Basically more legal rights to resist interrogation.

I vaguely recall something about domestic rebellions being a topic of the Geneva convention too, something about levels of escalation or something. Have to look that up. Not sure if that gives rights, but I think that affects how much intervention 3rd party countries can provide to the government that is facing an insurrection.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Respect for science, and now for international law? Mr. Obama, you spoil us so.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Yeah. I just wonder how the neocons are going to try to spin this one into a broken promise.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Respect for science, and now for international law? Mr. Obama, you spoil us so.

Awww but we need waterboarding and cutting peoples testicals especially now with crimminals behind the US economic collapse being exposed. What dose McCain know about torture anyway ?

I miss you Bush.

 

[Labtec600]

"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."

That doesnt say "only those that provide substantial support" can be detained.

And also for some reason this whole policy only applies to those at Guantamano. Why?

""This position is limited to the authority upon which the government is relying to detain the persons now being held at Guantanamo Bay. It is not, at this point, meant to define the contours of authority for military operations generally, or detention in other contexts,"

I agree with the above, what change?

 

[WICKLC1]

What are they called now?

 

[Formaldehyde]

"And also for some reason this whole policy only applies to those at Guantamano. Why?

Good question. But it does appear that the other torture faclities may soon folow suit once they have completed their review. My guess is that they didn't want to hold up cleaning up Gitmo before they could decide what to do globally.

"I agree with the above, what change?

This looks like a huge change for 2 reasons:

1) They can no longer claim that anybody is an "enemy combatant", which means they can no longer do as they wish outside of US and international law, e.g. arbtrarily torture and kill you with no right to habeus corpus.

2) The vast majority of Gitmo detainees appear to be people who got caught up in the whole "let's arbitarily torture and kill anybody who looks like they might be a terrorist" campaign. Many of them apparently had nothing to do with the Al Qaeda or the Taliban. It appears they can now no longer be held at Gitmo at all.

 

[Labtec600]

2) The vast majority of Gitmo detainees appear to be people who got caught up in the whole "let's arbitarily torture and kill anybody who looks like they might be a terrorist" campaign. Many of them apparently had nothing to do with the Al Qaeda or the Taliban. It appears they can now no longer be held at Gitmo at all.

In a 12-page explanation of its position, the government memo says the the Justice Department will look to the congressionally passed Authorization for the Use of Military Force and to international treaties, including the Geneva Conventions, to make decisions about holding prisoners.

But the government also said that because those treaties were developed for conflicts between the armed forces of nation states, new rules will have to be developed to fit al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners who were previously designated as "enemy combatants."


We'll see. Sounds right now it's just a case of Obama trying to overturn Bush policies as a "do gooder", not actually solving anything.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It seems pretty simple to me. If you not a member of a nation-state in a wartime environment, then you are a criminal. you are either bound to the Geneva Convention or international law. There are no other categories.

It will be interesting to see if Obama comes to the same conclusion or not. The previous decision to apply different standards to other facilities disturbed me, but this sounds like a giant step in the right direction.