Rest Assured, America, Obama Has Just Declared That The Gitmo Detainees Aren’t Our Enemies Any More

• March 14, 2009

Of course, they still want to murder us for being infidels, but that’s not important. What’s important is that we aren’t calling them “enemy combatants” any more.
Oh, and by the way, Obama is now using international law to define the scope of the powers of the President. Because apparently the Constitution wasn’t good enough.

In a filing today with the federal District Court for the District of Columbia, the Department of Justice submitted a new standard for the government’s authority to hold detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility. The definition does not rely on the President’s authority as Commander-in-Chief independent of Congress’s specific authorization. It draws on the international laws of war to inform the statutory authority conferred by Congress. It provides that individuals who supported al Qaeda or the Taliban are detainable only if the support was substantial. And it does not employ the phrase “enemy combatant.”…
In its filing today, the government bases its authority to hold detainees at Guantanamo on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which Congress passed in September 2001, and which authorized the use of force against nations, organizations, or persons the president determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the September 11 attacks, or harbored such organizations or persons. The government’s new standard relies on the international laws of war to inform the scope of the president’s authority under this statute, and makes clear that the government does not claim authority to hold persons based on insignificant or insubstantial support of al Qaeda or the Taliban.

Now, I understand Obama’s shift in policy in terms of limiting his power to detain enemy combatants (whoops, sorry Barry!) to Congress’ Authorization for Use of Military Force (essentially a declaration of war), but to base the scope of some of his powers on international law? That’s not how things should work.
If our domestic laws surrounding this issue are not adequate, then perhaps we should have a debate about amending them – up to and including the Constitution – as our founders intended. But Americans, and Americans alone, should set this policy.

Tags: Asshats, Domestic Issues, Politics, War On Terror

Buzz

One more Bush era crime fixed. Good job Obama!
http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

Only a fool would applaud such an undercutting of the Customary Laws of Warfare; buzzard breath is such a fool.
http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/ Chief RZ

I wonder what The One would have done with the JAPS who ate our men?
doonuts

Obama's half right…the real enemies to this country are the dumbshit libs like buzz, his gay buddy dino, and their pivot man realitybasedbob. These are the true terrorists…
Hawk

Now, I understand Obama's shift in policy in terms of limiting his power to detain enemy combatants (whoops, sorry Barry!) to Congress' Authorization for Use of Military Force (essentially a declaration of war), but to base the scope of some of his powers on international law? That's not how things should work.

Except that these international laws are codified in treaties which are the supreme law of the land. Wow, this is how things should work!!!
Buzz

Doonuts, I think I saw your daughter there in a inter-racial gang bang flick. You have to proud of her.
sjpentax67

Where do treaties become superior to the Constitution? If the executive and the legislative branches agree to a treaty that defies the Constitution, is it legal and binding?
Jk

Doonuts, I think I saw your daughter there in a inter-racial gang bang flick. You have to proud of her.
Buzz on March 13, 2009 at 02:58 pm

Buzz submits his intelligence for review…again.
http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/ Chief RZ

EA. Correct, the treaty must be reviewed by the Supreme Court if a case is brought.
Hawk

Where do treaties become superior to the Constitution?

They don't become superior to the Constitution, but you could make a serious argument that they would be equal to.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

However, I don't see how treaty agreeing to international laws of war could be constitutional.
Hawk

that should read, "However, I don't see how treaty agreeing to international laws of war could be unconstitutional.
http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/ goon

job Obama!

Buy American, Buy Union Made… the job

Your sir are a fucken moron. These guys are killers and NOBAMA is weaking this nation.
sjpentax67

Hawk,

The treaties are still subordinate to the Constitution. If not, what authorizes the the government to enter into a treaty?
Hawk

The treaties are still subordinate to the Constitution. If not, what authorizes the the government to enter into a treaty?

As long as the treaty is made under the authority of the US, which is given in the Constitution, once ratified its terms can be viewed as being equal to the Constitution.
Pilgrim

You truly don't get it do you, oh ye of little faith…..if we just let them go, if we just, just show them that we're the better people, if we set an example for those poor, poor misunderstood (and falsely accused)heathen, then they'll understand.

Kumbaya, and flowers for everyone!

You know, I'm a little cranky right now, sitting here with a broken rib, separated shoulder, and a spine that's hollering about impact abuse, but even I'm finding the reasoning behind this hilarious.

Are there ANY adults in the White House now? If so, speak up, please. And pass the bourbon.
Buzz

You know, I'm a little cranky right now, sitting here with a broken rib, separated shoulder, and a spine that's hollering

On one of those "OSHA approved" rat scaffolds? That's a shame. Good thing your company has quality disability insurance. NO? Dang, when will you guys learn.
Hannitized

If our domestic laws surrounding this issue are not adequate, then perhaps we should have a debate about amending them – up to and including the Constitution – as our founders intended. But Americans, and Americans alone, should set this policy.

Yeah, if we the people rise in arms against a foreign enemy or our own government in a revolution…does that mean we are enemy combatants that can be held in another countries prison?

Seriously, if you, Pilgrim rose up to defend your home from an Iraqi soldier who came here in uniform…should you serve time for the rest of your life with no trial in their prison, yes or no?

Yes or no?
jimmypop

Seriously, if you, Pilgrim rose up to defend your home from an Iraqi soldier who came here in uniform…should you serve time for the rest of your life with no trial in their prison, yes or no?

Yes or no?

certainly not. id expect them to let me go so i can go home and plan to kill more of them….. but when, not if, when they did keep me against my will for trying to kill them, i expect them to treat me to a nice room (with heat and ac as needed), great meals and all the porn (I will tell them thats my bible) i can handle. you think theyd respect me and my church enough to let me have all those things? yes or no? YES OR NO?

and theyd better not even THINK of hurting me or twits like you will die defending my rights, right? yes or no? YES OR NO?
Buzz

H, I will acknowledge your point even if they don't have the balls to. An enemy combatant is anyone in the world, that is not wearing a uniform that we acknowledge. Anyone, even US citizens. And can be detained (under Bush) for an indefinite time period without being charged with a crime and without having counsel. On top of that, we don't need to even say we have them, let alone let anyone know in what part of the world we are keeping them. Under Bush they have absolutely NO human rights what so ever. They are not even prisoners of war, they are nothing for as long as we say they are nothing. And with no justification need to pick anyone up and detain them as an enemy combatant it sure looks shady to the rest of the world. Not just shady, it is illegal under international agreements. This is why Obama is correcting this crime, and rightly so.
Bat One

Not just shady, it is illegal under international agreements.

Buzz, I really don't think you can adequately substantiate that claim, with the appropriate legal citations. But I am certainly willing to sit back and watch you try. 'Course, if you can't, then I guess you're just another anonymous blogger with a web address, right?
robert108

Bat: Those leftie loons should read the Geneva Convention; non uniformed combatants found on a battlefield can be summarily executed. Those scum at Gitmo are lucky to be alive.
robert108

Now, I understand Obama's shift in policy in terms of limiting his power to detain enemy combatants (whoops, sorry Barry!) to Congress' Authorization for Use of Military Force (essentially a declaration of war), but to base the scope of some of his powers on international law? That's not how things should work.

Just another reason to impeach him.
Bat One

R108,

A lot more cost effective too!
http://Array robert108

Bat: I agree, on both counts.
sayanything-4625

Seriously, if you, Pilgrim rose up to defend your home from an Iraqi soldier who came here in uniform…should you serve time for the rest of your life with no trial in their prison, yes or no?

I'm not Pilgram, would you mind if I threw in my opinion? If you go by history and the laws of war, yes. POWs on both sides of the conflict are usually held until the conflict is resolved. They drummed that one into our heads during basic and AIT.
sayanything-4625

if we the people rise in arms against a foreign enemy or our own government in a revolution…does that mean we are enemy combatants that can be held in another countries prison?

Yes, for a real world example look to the Confederates, do the prisons at Point Look Out, Rock Island, Camp Chase, Camp Douglas, Camp Randall, Elmira, Fort McHenry not ring a bell to you?
http://suitepotato.blogspot.com/ sayanything-4808

Buzz: Doonuts, I think I saw your daughter there in a inter-racial gang bang flick. You have to proud of her.

That was your mom, Buzz. Get some glasses. BTW, she says they're better endowed than you.

I was never crazy about the "enemy combatant" thing for the simple reason that nice uniforms are like flags and bands on the field. Nice for some sensibilities but not incredibly realistic when you're talking about guerrilla fighters and such fighters are a reasonable combat troop form. We're not talking Napoleonic warfare and smartly dressed generals and so on.

Now then, I do believe taking them prisoner is a kinder fate than summary execution. Should we waterboard them? If it does no physical harm, causes a quick and uncombatable reflex fear reaction to give up, fine, but what if they truly don't know a damn thing and the person administering it wants to believe otherwise?

I'm a little leery on the whole thing for serious reasons but so you understand not unhappy with Bush's response to the terrorists. The result was a precipitous drop in major events from them.
sayanything-4625

For another example look to FDR during WWII.
http://www.foitimes.com/internment/latina.htm

Mr. Macbeth [a member of the Commission]: Did you have any experience with the internment of enemy aliens who were outside of the United States.

Mr. Ennis: Oh yes, we had two programs…Now the other program was taking alien enemies from other countries in South America…If we couldn't get the [Latin American] countries to intern them we had to transmit them to the United States for internment…It was an aborted program, I don't think it accomplished anything. It had a security purpose to do in these countries [Latin America] what we were doing in the United States, about 5,000 German aliens were interned, and a few hundred German aliens in Cuba and in other countries in South America. But it didn't work very well. [Source: pp.157-159, Testimony of Edward J. Ennis before the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians on November 3, 1981, R.G. 220
docdave

I do believe taking them prisoner is a kinder fate than summary execution.

They don't deserve a kinder fate. If they were executed as they would have been in previous wars, we wouldn't have this internment problem.
http://suitepotato.blogspot.com/ sayanything-4808

Killing isn't the answer to this at every step Doc. We must not overlook that our way of life speaks of mercy, kindness, fairness, and other high concepts and if we're to give them any meaning we actually have to practice them, even at a cost to ourselves, as doing so at a cost with total cognizance of that cost demonstrates our commitment. It's one thing to have high principles only when it causes no injury, quite another to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

Also, there is the matter of conversion. Turning their hard core actors around sows distrust, discord, and uncertainty among them. We should not treat that lightly. If we have an opportunity to subvert and corrupt them to our side we should take it. Making martyrs of them is exactly what they want and their way of things thrives upon.

Sure we should take the war to them. Kill them in straight up combat. But if we take them alive, things are a bit different. Any idiot can kill helpless people. Make use of the opportunity to demonstrate your nobility and greatness, not to mention the war for the hearts and minds.
docdave

Sure we should take the war to them. Kill them in straight up combat.

I'm not talking about the Iraqi regulars who we defeated but those who after the war was affectively won used guerilla tactics to harm our forces. These are not combatants in the usual sense so there is no reason to give the ones we capture POW status. In previous warfare guerillas were summarily executed usually by firing squads. I see no reason to treat these people any differently.

Also, there is the matter of conversion.

Is there on record a single terrorist that has undergone a remorseful conversion? What is no record is that most of those released have returned to the ranks of the Islamic terrorists. You may not be concern about any of them walking free but I don't want any of them in my neighborhood.
Hannitized

… do the prisons at Point Look Out, Rock Island, Camp Chase, Camp Douglas, Camp Randall, Elmira, Fort McHenry not ring a bell to you?

Military tribunals? Uniformed soldiers??

I think that it is good if you can accept your imprisonment for defending your family and your country, if you are going to do it to others.

I don't think Pilgirm has the balls to admit he would have a double standard for refusing to see any justice in spending his life in an Iraqi prison for defending his family, country and property from iraqi invaders who came to snuff out conservative militias.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/homosexuality_is_wrong_-_a_compendium move_zig

You have to remember, the Law of War has been changed — to a degree – since the end of WWII, primarily by a UN who is largely run by the very tyrants who are guilty of mass murders at home and exportation of terrorism abroad. They've changed the laws regarding mercenaries, who until very recently, were very effective at killing Communists in great numbers (see, Southern Africa from the 1960's through the 1970's)

Indeed, you could have considered the American-staffed Lafayette Escadrille (Squadron Lafayette) during WWI, prior to the US involvement in 1917, or the American-staffed Eagle Squadron (Battle of Britain) and the American Volunteer Group, AVG, or more popularly known as the Flying Tigers, flying for Nationalist China against the Japanese before Pearl Harbor, all mercenaries.

But after the Commies noted the effectiveness of organizations like the South African 32 Bn , now under the UN-changed laws of war, it was mercenaries who were bad and guerillas who were good.

A good president would have completely abrogated any such treaties or international agreements and essentially kicked the UN out on its ass. It is an enemy-controlled, US Taxpayer-funded organization.

Good and bad are not so clear cut as they were back in the days when the Germans could summarily execute Francs-tireurs
or the US threatening to shoot German commandos in American uniform during the Battle of the Bulge.

We've got Commies at home and abroad to thank for this change in the laws of war.
sayanything-4625

Military tribunals? Uniformed soldiers??

When have military tribunals ever been held during a war? After a war, yes, during no. Uniformed soldiers are vastly different than guerrillas. Historically, guerrillas have been hung or shot on capture. By the laws of war, even today, they can be.

I think that it is good if you can accept your imprisonment for defending your family and your country, if you are going to do it to others.

How can I accept a different standard? The Geneva Conventions spell out what is supposed to happen. By the Geneva Convention, we have treated those captured in Iraq and Afghanistan quite well. They should be happy they weren't shot by the highest ranking officer upon capture. Yes, that's what summary execution means. Al Queada is not a signatory to the Geneva Convention and do not hold themselves to be a militia so by the rules of the convention they are fair game.

Don't even get me started on the Additional Protocol to Geneva Convention 4 that Zig alludes to in his post. We didn't sign that piece of crap.
sayanything-4625

I don't think Pilgirm has the balls to admit he would have a double standard for refusing to see any justice in spending his life in an Iraqi prison for defending his family, country and property from iraqi invaders who came to snuff out conservative militias.

The problem that you have with this argument Hanni is that many "freedom fighters" in Iraq are not native to Iraq. Kinda hampers your argument.

An NBC News analysis of hundreds of foreign fighters who died in Iraq over the last two years reveals that a majority came from the same country as most of the 9/11 hijackers — Saudi Arabia. The NBC News analysis of Web site postings found that 55 percent of foreign insurgents came from Saudi Arabia, 13 percent from Syria, 9 percent from North Africa and 3 percent from Europe.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8293410/
http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

First, as regards the laws of warfare.

1. Levee en mass, and insurgencies are covered, and can be conducted in a manner consistent with both the customary laws of warfare and Geneva III. Most importantly, insurgents or members of a levee en mass must bear their arms openly and wear a distinctive emblem visible at a distance. They must also uphold the customary laws of warfare in their operations. For those keeping score (as the U. S. Government used to under the previous administration), the terrorists fail all those tests.

2. The United States has not ratified and does not recognize the Additional Protocols.

3. International Law, beyond those treaties which the United States has both signed and ratified, have no place in the Courts of the United States.
sayanything-4625

To be fair I did some research on the amount of foreign fighters in Iraq. They number between 4 to 10% of the 30,000 insurgents.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti…
Pilgrim

Halfwit Hannitzed said:

I don't think Pilgirm has the balls to admit he would have a double standard for refusing to see any justice in spending his life in an Iraqi prison for defending his family, country and property from iraqi invaders who came to snuff out conservative militias.

Here's an inconvenient truth, moron: MOST of those held in Gitmo weren't native to either Iraq or Afhanistan. They came from elsewhere under the banner of Islam and Al Qaeda, not nationalism.

Further, many of those who simply fought on their home ground have been granted amnesty for the very reasons you just brought up.

As usual, your reasoning is about as shallow as your IQ.
2Hotel9

OK, for the slow morons on the left. Terrorists have no rights. Period. Full stop. When they choose to murder their own children and women in the name of their political/religious ideology they willingly, and for all time, surrender any claim to "rights" of any type or form.

And no. We never should have been taking these animals as prisoners to begin with.
sayanything-4625

We never should have been taking these animals as prisoners to begin with.

I disagree with you only because they have valuable information we need to fight the war.
http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

Sic semper terrorist.
2Hotel9

Greg, their information is worthless. Kill them, hunt them without relent, no mercy, no quarter, no end other than their death. It is what they say they want, to die for their god. Then lets us give then what they want. Its the only solution, hold them to the law their god has decreed. Which means death for all terrorists. The Qur'an is very clear on this. Any man who willingly spills the blood of innocent persons shall be killed in the name of Allah. They want a holy war? Fine. Lets give it to them. Because Allah is on OUR SIDE, not theirs.

Oh, and if the guilty have willingly spilled the blood of the innocent in god's name, we get to torture them to death. That is what THEIR law states. Time to force them to live under their law. To the letter, no mercy.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Rest Assured, America, Obama Has Just Declared That The Gitmo Detainees Aren’t Our Enemies Any More

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments