Obama backs Bush: No rights for Bagram prisoners

[Deadmeat]

I don't see why they should be given US legal rights. Let them come over here and commit crime if they want US legal rights.

[Acturus]

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y27...agramObama.jpg

amidoinitrite?

[Kuya]

La Justicia de EE UU elimina el término 'combatiente enemigo' · ELPAÍS.com

Sorry i can't translate now and i don't have an English source, but it seems the Obama administration has put an end to the term "enemy combatant". I think this is pretty huge. Sorry again for no english source.

[Plow]

La Justicia de EE UU elimina el término 'combatiente enemigo' · ELPAÍS.com

Sorry i can't translate now and i don't have an English source, but it seems the Obama administration has put an end to the term "enemy combatant". I think this is pretty huge. Sorry again for no english source.

It's hard to explain exactly, but it's basically what Aurik said.


These (the ones the op is about) are actual enemy combatants, fighting in live battles, being treated as, and carrying the rights, described in the Geneva Convention agreements.


What that article is about is basically limiting the term "enemy combatant" to actual people on actual battlefields fighting in traditionally defined wars. Essentially, the Bush administration abused that concept to say "this person was probably working on a way to attack America, therefore they are an enemy combatant and are only given the rights of a prisoner of war directly from the battlefield."

It's honestly not even completely about Guantanamo, G. Bay was skirting even further than that. It's more of a step to prevent the possibility of people even getting put in there, or similar systems, illegitimately.

[Plow]

Here, translated:

The Obama Administration ended the use of one of the terms used in George W. Bush's war on terror yesterday. As of yesterday, the term "enemy combatant" is eliminated, meaning the authority granted the former president is voided, and the U.S. can only detain prisoners under international law, and the laws of the U.S. Congress.

"As we move towards a new policy for detainees at Guantanamo, it is necessary to remain consistent with our values and the rule of our laws," said Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General. "The change we have embarked upon today (yesterday) meets these expectations, and makes our country a stronger place."

While Bush has expanded its (the executive branch) power, to the point of inventing the term "enemy combatant," in order to circumvent the international conventions designed to protect detainees, this new legislation establishes that it is not within the authority of the president to do so. Since announcing the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison, the Obama administration has continued working non stop to... (I dunno what they're saying here, get people out of there and reinstate their rights, basically, I think)

The way to approach suspected terrorists is "based on international laws of war," said Holder. "It is now established that supporters of Al-Qaeda, or Taliban detainees, are only so if it can be factually proven. It is established that none may be detained under the pretense of "enemy combatants."

After the attacks on Washington and New York in 2001, President Bush signed a military order allowing the arrest and prosecution of "certain foreign nationals in the war against terrorism." This text referred to the terrorists as "enemy combatants," a term which ould become widely used in the Bush administration's war rhetoric.

The Bush administration opened the detention center at Guantanamo Bay shortly after the events of 9/11 in effort to shut down the activities of these "enemy combatants." Using this classification, and operating outside of U.S. territory, the government skirted the Geneva Convention, which protects prisoners of war, and denied prisoners held outside of the U.S. their right to habeas corpus.

don't... quote me on that...

[Kuya]

Lawyers and court-watchers have been eagerly waiting to see how the Obama Department of Justice will define an “enemy combatant” — and wondering whether the new administration will continue to insist that the Pentagon has the right to hold people it suspects of assisting al-Qaeda or the Taliban indefinitely without charge or trial.
Well, today we got our answer.

Although the Justice Department says that it is withdrawing the term “enemy combatant” — which, after all, has become a major embarrassment for the United States over the last eight years — it is still maintaining essentially the same authority.

According to a document filed by the Justice Department in the D.C. District Court today, based on the “Authorization for the Use of Military Force (“AUMF”) that Congress passed in 2001, which is “informed by principles of the laws of war”:

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 person who has committed a belligerent act, or has directly supported hostilities, in aid of such enemy armed forces.

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. Still, the president gets to determine exactly who that is.
That’s not exactly what civil liberties advocates had been hoping for.
Here’s Jonathan Hafetz, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project, on the government’s announcement:

While it is positive that the new administration has re-considered and narrowed the definition of an “enemy combatant,” the new definition is way too broad and, in critical respects, reflects a continuation of the prior administration’s wrongheaded and illegal detention policy. In particular, it continues to treat terror suspects as a military, rather than criminal justice matter, and to claim the authority to seize and detain individuals captured beyond the battlefield indefinitely and without charges.

... They're sending mixed messages here.


http://washingtonindependent.com/338...initely-anyway