Why Obama’s Abandonment Of ‘Enemy Combatant’ Is So Wrong

Start Thinking Right ^ | March 16, 2009 | Michael Eden

[Michael Eden]

Btw,

I noted how “unlawful combatants were treated during WWII when I said:

“The problem is, the Geneva Convention doesn’t say much about how “unlawful combatants” are to be treated. During World War Two, the Germans and the Japanese simply tended to line them up and shoot them after brutal interrogation sessions.”

So I DO note that unlawful combatants - whom are today often being called “enemy combatants” - did not have any rights or privileges accorded to them.

And my ultimate point is that if we wipe out these distinctions, we may as well have the armies of the world throw away their uniforms and start employing the tactics of the terrorists to wage war whenever it is useful for a nation to do so.

So I’m not doing what you think I’m doing, but rather arguing that we need to keep the G.C. distinctions intact.

[LTCJ]

I think we're trying to move in the same direction here. There are the three categories as you state. However, an enemy combatant is a lawful combatant. For example, during WWII a USAAF crew member downed over Germany was a uniformed combatant of an enemy state and legitimately held as a POW until the end of hostilities.

[LTCJ]

So I’m not doing what you think I’m doing, but rather arguing that we need to keep the G.C. distinctions intact.

We're in 100% agreement here. Both the GWB and BHO administrations have horribly messed up the terminology and, more importantly, the policy on this.

[Michael Eden]

I think we're trying to move in the same direction here. There are the three categories as you state. However, an enemy combatant is a lawful combatant. For example, during WWII a USAAF crew member downed over Germany was a uniformed combatant of an enemy state and legitimately held as a POW until the end of hostilities.

Good to hear. We're on the same page.

I think it WILL be worth writing a story about the history of the term "enemy combatant." The question being: is it supposed to refer to the Geneva category "unlawful combatant" - as I chose to take it for purposes of this article - or is it supposed to CONFUSINGLY refer to the Geneva category "unlawful combatant."

And what was the motivation of changing the Geneva Convention terminology in the first place?

The articles on the subject are not mentioning this potential confusion at all.

There are SO MANY conspiracies to confuse what was once clear that I think you are right to smell a rat.

[Michael Eden]

I’m watching Bill O’Reilly as I’m blogging, and I heard Dennis Miller say the following:

“They call us SATAN, and we can’t even point out that their terrorists? Or that they are our enemy?

[angkor]

What one would need would be to show that it was the MEDIA or liberals who coined the term “enemy combatant" rather than the Bush admin,

This is the perfect job for someone with access to Lexis/Nexis to do an Ann Coulter-ish analysis of the timelines and article-counts on "unlawful combatant" vs. "enemy combatant".

My memory may be a little off in terms of the dates - it may have been a full year after 9/11 when the transition in the media occurred - but I'm certain that it did occur and I'm certain that I was perplexed by it at the time. "What the heck does 'enemy combatant' mean?"

In any case there is currently a small leftie movement underway to formally and legally "redefine" or perhaps better-stated to "undefine" the term "unlawful combatant" such that it does not include people such as those terrorists who have been detained and housed at Gitmo.

But let's be clear that the ONLY outcome (and IMO the actual intent) of this would be to legitimize terrorists and jihadis under some perverse incarnation of the Geneva Conventions and the laws of war.

Thus do Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Mohammad Atta, Ramzi Yousef, Ramzi Binalshibh, and Ziad Jarrah all become "Prisoners Of War" and legitimate "soldiers" under the Geneva Conventions.

Which in turn also makes innocent civilians legitimate "military" targets.

That's why this terminology is so deadly.

[angkor]

>>>>>> enemy combatants are legitimate soldiers and have a right to be treated as such if captured. Unlawful combatants have no such rights and are subject to execution. <<<<

Yes sir, precisely.

Unlawful combatants are nonentities under any and all international laws of war including the Geneva Conventions precisely because they are unlawful, and hence they may be prosecuted by whatever method and manner deemed proper by their captors, not limited to and including espionage, spying, and terrorism, in either a civilian court or by military tribunal.

[angkor]

And I might add that I personally will be forever peeved that the Bush Admin did not make the proper public case on this and many other related matters.

GWB had the bully pulpit and the legitimate voice on this and many other related matters and he NEVER NOT ONCE took the time to explain (and then reiterate again and again) the case on what we were doing and why regarding unlawful combatant jihadis.

Failing repeatedly to make the public case over the course of eight long years was an obscene dereliction of the Bush Admin IMHO.

Look what a mess they have left us when the job was so easy to accomplish (rather than hiding everything behind locked doors).

Also why the Bush Admin did not DEMAND a formal Declaration Of War on Sept 18 2001 against all groups on the (legally chartered) State Dept. Designated Terrorist List is something I will never, ever, not in one million years understand. Yes this had other legal implications but it would have solidified support or at least properly framed our war against terrorists (not the ridiculous “War On Terror”).

Sorry for ranting, this issue gets me very worked up.