« | »

Obama Won’t Label Terrorists As ‘Enemy’

From those tireless defenders of the faith at the New York Times:

U.S. Won’t Label Terror Suspects as ‘Combatants’


March 14, 2009

The Obama administration said Friday that it would abandon the Bush administration’s term “enemy combatant” as it argues in court for the continued detention of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in a move that seemed intended to symbolically separate the new administration from Bush detention policies.

But in a much anticipated court filing, the Justice Department argued that the president has the authority to detain terrorism suspects there without criminal charges, much as the Bush administration had asserted. It provided a broad definition of those who can be held, which was not significantly different from the one used by the Bush administration.

The filing signaled that, as long as Guantánamo remains open, the new administration will aggressively defend its ability to hold some detainees there.

“The president has the authority to detain persons” who planned or aided the 2001 terrorist attacks as well as those “who were part of, or substantially supported, Taliban or Al Qaeda forces,” administration lawyers wrote.

The Obama administration said it was relying on existing principles of the international law of war. A public statement indicated that the government was moving away from claims of expansive executive power often used by the Bush administration to justify Guantánamo.

The new administration took pains to try to point out that it was taking a different approach. It said the new definition “does not rely on the president’s authority as commander in chief” beyond the powers authorized by Congress. The filing, in Federal District Court in Washington, was meant to provide a definition of those detainees who can be held and bitterly disappointed critics of Guantánamo, who said it seemed to continue the policies they have criticized for more than seven years…

The new definition did add a requirement that to justify detention a detainee would have to have “substantially supported” Al Qaeda, the Taliban or forces associated with them. But the administration did not define “substantial,” and the detainees’ lawyers said they doubted that the change would help many of their clients.

The filing, which was made in some 40 habeas corpus cases of detainees’ challenging their imprisonment, is expected to be the government’s position in more than 200 such cases and to govern a separate review of all cases outside of court that has been ordered by President Obama…

Even though the New York Times seeks to highlight the term ‘combatants,” it’s clear that the use of the word “enemy” is the bigger problem.

For why should Mr. Obama or his ilk consider the bravos detained in Guantanamo as “enemies”?

These terrorists were simply seeking ‘social justice.’ And they were going about it in the best way they could given their difficult circumstances.

Indeed, there is nothing wrong with these unfortunates that a few more billions in foreign aid wouldn’t cure.

But even so, The Times is desolate that Mr. Obama has not simply freed their heroes.

This article was posted by Steve on Saturday, March 14th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

19 Responses to “Obama Won’t Label Terrorists As ‘Enemy’”

  1. Liberals Demise says:

    Only the Top 5% according to Joe the Ho are really in this catagory and should probably be referred to as “Friendly Foes”. I mean we don’t want to hurt the tough guys feelings or step on their delicate tootsies.
    Commander Ozone and his Butt Puppets had better get a grasp of fresh reality. These monsters will see to it that as they go down, they will try to take as many of us with them! This ain’t no game Mr. Obama and it pisses me off that you want to play word games and footsy with these purveyers of Americas’ death. For Gods sake man, you are going to get us killed!!

  2. catie says:

    I think that with every antic this clown does he cannot outdo what he just did. But alas, nearly everyday I am amazed that he can indeed top his previous decision. Here’s a suggestion for you Barack, why don’t you take the Belle, the punishments and the m-i-l down to Gitmo on a “Listening Tour”. I’m sure you all will learn a lot.

  3. Rusty Shackleford says:

    No….mustn’t label people.

    That would be …..accurate.

    (And you thought I was gonna say “wrong”)

  4. proreason says:

    You have to wonder where The Moron’s true loyalties lie.

    What has he done in 50+ days to help OUR country?

  5. LewWaters says:

    To Obama and the Democrats, the ‘real’ enemy is fellow Americans that are Republican and conservative, not radical Jihadists that wish to destroy America and murder its inhabitants.

  6. sheehanjihad says:

    It’s unfortunate….really unfortunate that this administration, in it’s attempts to appease the PC vocal minority, are going to be totally responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of American Citizens. This is just the tip of Obama’s doormat appeasement policy. This clueless idiot is going to get a lot of people killed. And for what? So some douchebag pundit doesnt get offended? I have to go sit outside for a while…..and ponder what the horizon will look like with two suns rising at the same time…..

  7. TwilightZoned says:

    Here are the definitions:

    One entry found.

    Main Entry:
    en·e·my Listen to the pronunciation of enemy
    Inflected Form(s):
    plural en·e·mies
    Middle English enemi, from Anglo-French, from Latin inimicus, from in- 1in- + amicus friend — more at amiable
    13th century

    1: one that is antagonistic to another ; especially : one seeking to injure, overthrow, or confound an opponent
    2: something harmful or deadly
    3 a: a military adversary b: a hostile unit or force

    I believe O would fit definition #1 with what’s he’s doing to Americans & #2 with his cigarette addiction. Someone please forward him definition #3 since he has no clue there are three.

  8. Barbie says:

    I am curious about the ‘substantial support’ which the administration did NOT define leaving yet one more open-ended term subject to personal definition. Obama wants to keep his options open. This is just a shell game using words in order to convince Obamabots that Odumbo has accomplished something. This guy is scary – he twists things to make them appear different – when they’re the same.. What’s he going to call them now – smurfs?? Because the smurfs are still in Gitmo and Odumbo is saying he still has power to keep the smurfs there. Just like GW did. Except GW didn’t play games – at least not with Gitmo. Odumbo is trying to distance himself by slamming GW, but Odumbo’s not changed much except a name.

  9. I hate to have to point this out. This is not a departure from what the outgoing administration was going to /had done.

    I was talking to Pete Hoekstra at a breakfast in Traverse City in 2007, and he mentioned even then he was disappointed with the Bush administration’s decision to stop using terms which were considered NON PC..

    Pete was rightly indignant..

  10. 12 Gauge Rage says:

    These people are terrorists plain and simple. Technically they do not have the protection of the Geneva Convention nor the personal liberties afforded to the American citizen such as Habeas Corpus. Obama and his cabal can change the names they give to these murderers but it won’t change their true inner nature.

  11. canary says:

    Don’t forget. The Obamas and homegrown bomb terrorist Ayers campaigned for criminal lienency.
    Damaging photos

    • canary says:

      The Obama’s and Ayers worked on lienecty of criminals. Obama’s has forgiven all his team for not paying taxes, and doesn’t call for any punishment, but reward for bad behavior. Now he wants to the worst Muslim terrorists, whose own countries are to fearful to take back, to not to go free, but come to this country and sue us.

  12. joeblough says:

    Steve Gilbert nailed it.

    For why should Mr. Obama or his ilk consider the bravos detained in Guantanamo as “enemies”?

    These terrorists were simply seeking ‘social justice.’ And they were going about it in the best way they could given their difficult circumstances.


    B.O.’s sophomoric Frantz Fanon understanding of the world is going to create hell.

  13. brad says:

    Any way you slice it, it is wrong to hold people forever without charges. Either present your evidence, or let them out. I don’t like it either, but it is an example of a lazy and oppressive gov’t that can’t even make up a good excuse to keep these guys in prison. They may be scumbags, but you have to prove it, and do something about it.

    It just seems so antiquated to lock someone in a bell tower without charges, just because you are pissed off at them.

    • canary says:

      Their countries are refusing to take them back. I’d think we should send them to their countries, before we bring them to this country. But, bascially, the ones being kept are so violent now, they can’t be released. The ones still imprisoned keep saying they will kill the minute they are released. It’s more of an insane asylum. They have this problem even in prisons in this country. There are certain prisoners that are max security, because they are killing machines.

    • Liberals Demise says:

      I suggest that before any are brought here to the States, they be lobotomized. That’s right, turn them into foot shuffling zombies that mess in their sheets!!
      Problem solved and a smile put on LDs’ face forever!!

    • Lipstick on a PIAPS says:

      It is wrong to hold these Terrorist. They need to be shot right away and get it over with and we can close Gitmo and save money. I guess even a broken clock like Obama is right two times a day. LMAO

    • cjokry says:

      I think brad and lipstick are both correct here. We have a system in place to deal with criminals of all kinds, even war criminals, terrorists, whatever you call these guys now that you don’t call them “enemy combatants” (“smurfs”, someone said.) They should be processed and prosecuted. Apparently, Mr. Obama is too busy setting all of our money on fire and throwing it in a great big bottomless hole to get around to that, so he’ll just do the same thing Bush did while claiming it’s doing something different cuz he calls it something different.

      This Gitmo thing was a huge sticking point of the liberals, one of the major reasons they all gave for hating the crap out of Bush. If Obama can’t even do the right thing when it’s totally to his political advantage, what hope do we have he’ll ever do anything right?

    • Barbie says:

      A rose by any other name is still a rose, and an enemy combatant by any other name is still a (insert new name here) – they’re still stuck down in gitmo and Obama’s policy is no different from Bush’s policy.

      And IMO if Bush’s policy has been sticky, wait until Obama starts to prove or disprove ‘substantial support’.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »