Go Obama!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Obama abandons term 'enemy combatant'

Mar 13 02:43 PM US/Eastern

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Obama administration is abandoning one of President George W. Bush's key phrases in the war on terrorism: enemy combatant

In court filings Friday, the Justice Department said it will no longer use the term to justify holding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

Obama still asserts the military's authority to hold prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. But he says that authority comes from Congress and the international laws of war, not from the president's own wartime power.

Bush had argued that the president as commander in chief could unilaterally hold prisoners without charge.

The Justice Department says prisoners can only be detained if their support for al-Qaida or the Taliban was "substantial."


This is huge.

It was mind- boggling to me how Bush-Cheney empowered themselves to pick and imprison anyone, for any length of time , without charging them.
 
This is huge.

It was mind- boggling to me how Bush-Cheney empowered themselves to pick and imprison anyone, for any length of time , without charging them.



Good news, they can get back to work now.

Freed to wage war on British troops: Guantanamo prisoner is now Taliban chief | Mail Online


By Caroline Grant
Last updated at 3:53 PM on 12th March 2009

Rasoul is believed to have been behind the spike in roadside bombings against British troops since early 2008 when he was released from prison (file photo)

A Taliban chief responsible for deadly bomb attacks against British troops in Afghanistan was a prisoner in Guantanamo Bay just 15 months ago.

Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul was released from the camp in Cuba after U.S. officials decided he was no longer a threat.

He was handed over to the Afghan government who then freed him in Kabul early last year, according to Pentagon and CIA officials.

News of his involvement in terror attacks comes just weeks after Barack Obama signed executive orders to close the controversial prison camp at Guantanamo.

One of the new president's central campaign pledges, the move is part of a concentrated bid to improve America's tarnished image around the world.

The revelation that Rasoul has become a high-ranking Taliban commander in such a short space of time is, therefore, a bitter blow.

He was among 13 Afghan prisoners released to Hamid Karzai's government and is now known as Mullah Abdullah Zakir - the Taliban's new operations chief in Helmand and the architect of a new offensive against British troops.

Since then, the threat from the Taliban has soared as they deploy more sophisticated and powerful roadside bombs against British troops.

More than 40 British troops have been killed by roadside bombs since last year. One Whitehall official told The Times: 'He is a serious player.'

Sources at the Pentagon said that Rasoul, who spent six years at Guantanamo Bay where he was Detainee 008, has joined a growing faction of former inmates of the camp who have rejoined militant groups.

It is thought that as many as 60 former detainees have resurfaced on the battlefields.

Rasoul was captured in 2001, according to documents assembled by the U.S. military for a 2005 review of his combatant status at Guantanamo.

Armed with a gun and sitting in the car of an alleged Taliban leader, he insisted to the U.S. authorities that he had been forced to carry the gun by the Taliban.

Rasoul told the tribunal in 2005 that in fact he had surrendered with other Taliban members to the Northern Alliance in Konduz on December 12, 2001.
Guantanamo Bay

The number of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay has been wound down over the last few months

British officials and Taliban sources said that Rasoul was believed to be based in Quetta, Pakistan.

'He is back in Helmand since his release,' said a Taliban commander.

'He is in the border area now, sometimes in Pakistan and sometimes in Afghanistan. He is a very big commander.'

Rasoul was flown home to Kabul on December 12, 2007.

He was then held in Pul-e-Charkhi maximum security prison in a block that had been specially renovated by the Americans for the detention of prisoners transferred from jails at Bagram airbase, near Kabul, and Guantanamo.

He was freed early in 2008, but the circumstances of his release remain unclear.

Although the full text of the decision to release him has not been declassified, documents show that the decision was unanimous.

Some of the factors that helped his release were that he denied knowledge of Osama Bin Laden, said he had been conscripted into the Taliban and denied that he had ever been to a training camp.

He also promised that he intended to return to a peaceful life in Afghanistan.

'I want to go back home and join my family and work on my land and help my family,' he said.

He did admit having joined the Taliban twice - once, under duress, in 1995, and the second time in 1997, to get proper treatment for injuries sustained in a bombing.
 
Good news, they can get back to work now.




so what do you suggest we do? what's your solution? continue to hold people without charging them for the indefinite, possibly infinite, duration of the GWOT?

if these people are so dangerous, charge them with crimes and punish them. what's intolerable is the lawless netherworld of detention.
 
Good news, they can get back to work now.



If 99% are innocent, but one is guilty that is good enough for you?

I think there have been something like over 700 held in GITMO and over half have been freed, many with no real reason for being there.

My advise is to charge the ones that deserve to be there, for every example you can provide, I can provide more than one that there was no justification for holding.

Perhaps it would be alright with you if you were rounded up with 100 random men and held indefinitely. We can guarantee you that at least 10 men are real bad guys. We just don't know which ones, so we won't charge anyone, just keep them locked up.
You would spend 10, 15 years in prison.
 
If 99% are innocent, but one is guilty that is good enough for you?

I think there have been something like over 700 held in GITMO and over half have been freed, many with no real reason for being there.

My advise is to charge the ones that deserve to be there, for every example you can provide, I can provide more than one that there was no justification for holding.

Perhaps it would be alright with you if you were rounded up with 100 random men and held indefinitely. We can guarantee you that at least 10 men are real bad guys. We just don't know which ones, so we won't charge anyone, just keep them locked up.
You would spend 10, 15 years in prison.


520 have been released. 61 have returned to combat, that we know of. More than one in ten.



Wow...:|

The more you post... oh nevermind.



Yeah I want terrorists dead. Awwww.
 
520 have been released. 61 have returned to combat, that we know of. More than one in ten.

that number is not surprising, if it is correct. Whatever, return to combat means.

The 911 hi-jackers should be charged.
An Afghan foot soldier defending his town from foreign invaders? is very questionable.
 
Except you have no evidence of their guilt...

Oh woops :doh:

Who gives a shit about real justice, that's the conservative way.


If they go back to combat and get killed, guilty as charged. I didn't say execute them in captivity.


You apologists and sympathizers are funny though. They'd slice your head off no matter what you feel about them. Stick to the safety of the internet, the real world is dangerous.
 
the fact that a released GITMO prisoner returned to combat really is not saying much, it really is not surprising at all.



If you were held uncharged for 5 years and received harsh interrogation (tortured ).
You might want these people out of your country, or would you want them there gathering up more people?
 
LOL, this is nothing compared to the thousands upon thousands of those that have been, or are currently being released in Iraq.

We have guys that have been rounded up 3/4/5 times. How do we release those guys? Well, it's pretty simple. If you haven't killed a coalition soldier or civilian, you're free to go. Now, what if you killed an Iraqi civilian, soldier or policeman? Then we turn you over to the Iraqis. Most prefer to stay in the american prison. :(
 
the fact that a released GITMO prisoner returned to combat really is not saying much, it really is not surprising at all.



If you were held uncharged for 5 years and received harsh interrogation (tortured ).
You might want these people out of your country, or would you want them there gathering up more people?

It's not surprising because they were captured during combat, and for generally being fucking assholes, not for the random lock ups you suggest. 700 prisoners out of the thousands we've fought? Yeah it's not surprising that we are unable to release some back to their own countries because they'd be killed. Gitmo is their best option. The people that want those assholes out of their country are the Afghans and Iraqis.
 
This is huge.

It was mind- boggling to me how Bush-Cheney empowered themselves to pick and imprison anyone, for any length of time , without charging them.


Back to the original point. Obama is ending a phrase, not a phase. Gotta love "change".

Obama admin. to end use of term 'enemy combatant'

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. But that 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. Human rights attorneys said they were disappointed that Obama didn't take a new stance.

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

"This is really a case of old wine in new bottles," the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has been fighting the detainees' detention, said in a statement. "It is still unlawful to hold people indefinitely without charge. The men who have been held for more than seven years by our government must be charged or released."
 
Of course it won't change the status of existing detainees. This is more about the future. How we deal with the existing detainees will be a delicate situation, a damned if you do damned if you don't type of situation thanks to Mr. W.
 
The article goes on to state numerous complaints from Rights groups. Check those out. I'm not going to argue a case for it because I'm happy with it. He changed nothing and dicked over those who support him. Lap it up.
 
Well, last night was kind of "special".

Yes. "Crickets..." are heard here in FYM. Nothing.

I wasn't offended, but I do wonder if W had made the same joke about the Special Olympics, and what the reaction would be.

Of course W didn't appear as a sitting President on a late night talk show. He did give up golf though...
 
^ He was off his prompter, what do you expect?

I'm glad to see him getting beat up (although only slightly) over this. Lord knows what would have happened if this had been President Bush.
 
^ He was off his prompter, what do you expect?

I'm glad to see him getting beat up (although only slightly) over this. Lord knows what would have happened if this had been President Bush.



shockingly predictable.

yes, it was a stupid comment. he's taking heat for it. we're all moving on.

it's not like he invaded the wrong country, insulted our allies, exploded the deficit, read My Pet Goat while 3,000 people were murdered on the streets of New York, watched New Orleans drown, or trumpeted his anti-intellectualism as some sort of badge of honor.

but go ahead and carp about some sort of double-standard. it's about as effective as refusing stimulus money and doing fuck-all else about the current economic situation as you hope it gets worse while biding your time in 2012 for that dream Palin/Jindal ticket.
 
Yes. "Crickets..." are heard here in FYM. Nothing.

I wasn't offended, but I do wonder if W had made the same joke about the Special Olympics, and what the reaction would be.

Of course W didn't appear as a sitting President on a late night talk show. He did give up golf though...

Ha yes. I came in here yesterday to see if there was any discussion of it but it seems not.

Having said that it's stupid when people get on their high horse about comments like these. PC bullshit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom