Enemy Combatant ?

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-30-2008
Enemy Combatant ?
8
Fri, 03-13-2009 - 7:04pm

This "law of war" concept is based on the notion that we are in a "war" with terrorists -- when, in my humble opinion only, fighting terrorism is not a war where there are "detainees"  or "prisoners of war"  - the people who murder other people ... terroristically or not.. belong in jail and should be given a trial like any other murderer gets in this country.  I know this sounds simplistic and I'm sure I'm not considering all the facts .. but one thought can lead to another thought that could amount to something.


If our govt were to rethink this notion - then maybe things would go more smoothly.  If they want to send intelligence to find the murders in other countries - then do so and extradite them into this country to stand trial for murder.  We dont need Gitmo or any other torture facility.  We need to rethink how we go about seeking and punishing murders in or out of this country - it could save us billions of dollars...not to mention the lives of our military and innocent civilians.


And if people were falsely accused of being terrorists  and were detained and tortured...why on earth would our country want to stand in the way of them receiving restitution for their pain and suffering - physically and/or mentally?


Obama abandons term 'enemy combatant'


The president still asserts the military's authority to hold Gitmo detainees

 


The Associated Press

updated 5:24 p.m. ET, Fri., March. 13, 2009



WASHINGTON - The Obama administration said Friday that it is abandoning one of President George W. Bush's key phrases in the war on terrorism: enemy combatant.


The Justice Department said in legal filings that it will no longer use the term to justify holding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.


But that's won't change much for the detainees at the U.S. naval base in Cuba — Obama still asserts the military's authority to hold them. But his Justice Department says that authority comes from Congress and the international laws of war, not from the president's own wartime power as Bush had argued.


In another court filing Thursday, the Obama administration tried to protect top Bush administration military officials from lawsuits brought by prisoners who say they were tortured while being held at Guantanamo Bay.


Detainee lawsuits
The Obama administration's position on use of the phrase "enemy combatants" came in response to a deadline by U.S. District Judge John Bates, who is overseeing lawsuits of detainees challenging their detention. Bates asked the administration to give its definition of whom the United States may hold as an "enemy combatant."


The filing back's Bush's stance on the authority to hold detainees, even if they were not captured on the battlefield in the course of hostilities. In their lawsuits, detainees have argued that only those who directly participated in hostilities should be held.


"The argument should be rejected," the Justice Department said in its filing. "Law-of-war principles do not limit the United States' detention authority to this limited category of individuals. A contrary conclusion would improperly reward an enemy that violates the laws of war by operating as a loose network and camouflaging its forces as civilians."


Retired Army Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham, a former Guantanamo official who has since become critical of the legal process, said it's a change in nothing but semantics.


"There's absolutely no change in the definition," Abraham said in a telephone interview. "To say this is a kinder more benevolent sense of justice is absolutely false. ... I think the only thing they've done is try to separate themselves from the energy of the debate" by eliminating Bush's phrasing.


Attorney General Eric Holder also submitted a declaration to the court outlining President Barack Obama's efforts to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility within a year and determine where to place the 240 people held there. He said there could be "further refinements" to the administration's position as that process goes on.


"Promptly determining the appropriate disposition of those detained at Guantanamo Bay is a high priority for the president," Holder wrote.


'Substantial' al-Qaida support
The Justice Department says prisoners can only be detained if their support for al-Qaida, the Taliban or "associated forces" was "substantial." But it does not define the terms.


On the topic of former administration officials, the Justice Department argued in a filing with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., that holding military officials liable for their treatment of prisoners could cause them to make future decisions based on fear of litigation rather than appropriate military policy.


The suit before the appeals court was brought by four British citizens — Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal, Rhuhel Ahmed and Jamal Al-Harith — who were sent back to Great Britain in 2004. The defendants in the case include former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and retired Gen. Richard Myers, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.


The men say they were beaten, shackled in painful stress positions and threatened by dogs during their time at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. They also say they were harassed while practicing their religion, including forced shaving of their beards, banning or interrupting their prayers, denying them copies of the Koran and prayer mats and throwing a copy of the Koran in a toilet.


They contend in their lawsuit that the treatment violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which provides that the "government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion."


The appeals court ruled against them early last year, saying because the men were foreigners held outside the United States, they do not fall within the definition of a "person" protected by the act.


But later in the year, the Supreme Court ruled that Guantanamo detainees have some rights under the Constitution. So the Supreme Court instructed the appeals court to reconsider the lawsuit in light of their decision.


Torture liability?
Eric Lewis, attorney for the four, said Friday that military officials should be subject to liability when they order torture.


"The upshot of the Justice Department's position is that there is no right of detainees not to be tortured and that officials who order torture should be protected," Lewis said.


Last month in another court filing, the Justice Department sided with the Bush White House by arguing that detainees at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights.


Human rights advocates cheered Obama's order the first week of his presidency to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay and his declaration that the United States would never again torture prisoners. But, he has since been criticized for maintaining some Bush policies.


Obama has continued Bush's policy of imprisoning enemy combatants in Afghanistan without trial, and invoked the state secrets law in a federal court case that involves the CIA's extraordinary rendition program, in which U.S. operatives seized foreign suspects and handed them over to other countries for questioning. The law blocks the release of evidence the government deems secret and potentially harmful to U.S. security.


Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's statement during a trip to Asia that the administration remains deeply concerned about human rights in China but cannot let that interfere with cooperation with Beijing also worried human rights activists.


Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.



URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29681819/


iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2008
Fri, 03-13-2009 - 11:40pm

The U.S. may have military jurisdiction to take someone into custody from a battlefield during a war and try them for war crimes.

However to extricate people from other countries for the crime of murder and try them in the U.S. would present the problem of jurisdiction. What authority would the U.S. use to try someone in our criminal courts from another country for a crime in another country? Isn't it none of our business?

We no longer have a war on terror, and no longer have enemy combatants. I wonder on what basis is anyone held at Gitmo?

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-30-2008
Sat, 03-14-2009 - 1:35am

What I meant to say is that if a US citizen is attacked here inthe US by a terrorist then the crime occured here.


I dont understand why they should be able to hold those detainees any longer.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2008
Sat, 03-14-2009 - 2:33pm
I'm certain now that we no longer have a war on terror and now that there are no more enemy combatants that everyone at Gitmo will be given a trip home.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-25-2008
Sat, 03-14-2009 - 3:12pm
We no longer had a war on terror the moment Bush decided it was less important to get OBL and his organization than it was to fulfill a personal vendetta against Hussein.

 


"      

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2008
Sat, 03-14-2009 - 5:13pm

25 million were liberated for tyranny as a result of the actions of President Bush.

The war we won, the war with an exit plan, all handled by President Bush is over. Iraq is and was won under President Bush.

Now the war without an exit plan, the war we haven't won, the war in Afghanistan, is the war of President Obama.

Good luck Barack!

As for residents of Gitmo, without a war on terror, without status as enemy combatants, how come they are still incarcerated by our military?

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-04-2009
Sat, 03-14-2009 - 6:21pm


LOL!

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-25-2008
Sat, 03-14-2009 - 7:55pm

Which has what to do with terrorists or terrorism where the US was concerned?


25 million were liberated for tyranny as a result of the actions of President Bush.


And we failed to win anything there.

 


"      

Avatar for claddagh49
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2004
Sat, 03-14-2009 - 8:57pm
I find it appalling the way some Conservatives think about the Iraq War situation. Living in their Bush Bubble.