Department of Justice Withdraws “Enemy Combatant” Definition for Guantanamo Detainees

USDOJ ^ | 12/13/09 | US Department of Justice

[Tucsonican]

Department of Justice Withdraws “Enemy Combatant” Definition for Guantanamo Detainees 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."

The Department also submitted a declaration by Attorney General Eric Holder stating that, under executive orders issued by President Obama, the government is undertaking an interagency review of detention policy for individuals captured in armed conflicts or counterterrorism operations as well as a review of the status of each detainee held at Guantanamo. The outcome of those reviews may lead to further refinements of the government’s position as it develops a comprehensive policy.

"As we work towards developing a new policy to govern detainees, it is essential that we operate in a manner that strengthens our national security, is consistent with our values, and is governed by law," said Attorney General Holder. "The change we’ve made today meets each of those standards and will make our nation stronger."

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.

The brief was filed in habeas litigation brought by numerous detainees at Guantanamo who are challenging their detention under the Supreme Court’s decision last summer in Boumediene v. Bush. A copy of the brief is attached.

###

[CRBDeuce]

/rant....going off to see mirror image of exploding head.

[Las Vegas Ron]

I have news for you, FRiend: the most dangerous people in America are presently running our government.

Lock and load, and I mean that most literally.

Good advice

[Las Vegas Ron]

If you want to know how far we are past 9/11, here’s your answer: Our president’s name is Barack Obama.

Rather ironic, we go to war to remove a Hussein then turn around and vote one in as POTUS

[Las Vegas Ron]

that Rush Limbaugh is now an enemy combatant.

They may not say it like that but you can rest assured that's how they see it.

We have an enemy of America in the White House

[1010RD]

Thanks. Let’s get them printed up. How much for 1000?

[null and void]

Ah, so, what are they now?

Religious dialecticals with anger management issues.

Evangelicals?

[Matthew James]

Message to our troops in the field: Stop taking terrorists prisoner; the Muslim-sympathizer Marxist in the White House is just going to let them go.

[Squantos]

Liberal socialist democrat self protection decision IMO as THEY support such acts against the US same as the islamakazi terrorists they fund for the most part.

[omega4179]

The new term: non radicalized persons of interest.

[3catsanadog]

Or as Joe Pesci would call them, “yutes.” I think I’ll watch My Cousin Vinny tonight.

[3catsanadog]

What will Obama and his Socialist Party say when we have another 9/11, or worse?

No problem - blame Bush.

[FARS]

Did you know?

http://noiri.blogspot.com/2009/03/why-we-can-grow-back-or-grow-new-body.html

[BARLF]

Had to erase my first response so I'll just agree with what you said.

You said it better than me anyway.

Thanks

[wtc911]

In the future they will receive sensitivity training, have to sit through a video on the evils of bullying and engage in role-playing activities designed to raise their awareness of and appreciation for cultural differences.

Then they will be given a NYC hack liscense and a no-income-check mortgage on a brick house in Queens.

[M. Espinola]

Maybe Obama’s next move will be to give them medals.

[Danae]

FACINATING

[Shadowstrike]

It probably won’t be long before our troops aren’t even allowed to have guns in ‘dangerous’ places.

Remember when they told our troops (Somalia or some other place....dang memory) that they had to identify themselves as a US Soldier and give the bad guys the chance to not shoot?

Lovely stuff ain’t it.

[Old Sarge]

THAT was just incredible!

[1035rep]

Thanks for the ping FARS.

Pathetic...Never, ever trust a Democrat with our security.
Americans are going to learn a very hard lesson. I hope we make it through the next 4 years of the Democrat reign of terror, led by the Clown in Chief Hussein Obama.

[BraveMan]

It’s a good thing we make RFID tags the size of a grain of rice.

Hey detainee, watch what you eat . . .