Say Anything Blog

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.