Posted on 03/13/2009 12:43:57 PM PDT by 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.
###
What’s going to happen is that the terrorists will be bought back here for trial in Federal civil court. They will be subsequently let out on technicalities and will sue the government for money (Which will fund terrorist activities). The terrorists will then return to Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
....defend the Constitution against its domestic enemies.
Did “The Porn Lawyer” (Ogden) have a say in this matter? He was sworn in yesterday wasn’t he?
I spell that... D*A*N*G*E*R*O*U*S
And appointed to Obama's cabinet.
Quote of the Day!
Disorganization, mayhem and confusion in the public square will upset the apple cart of freedom so as to impliment marxist policies.
There must be sufficient contempt for the status quo in order to replace the status quo.
This has got to be the dumbest thing I've ever read. He changed the name but did nothing else.
From here on they’ll just be classified as “misunderstood”.
It’s a fact that a couple of hundred terrorists have already been released from Gitmo and many are already back at it. There is specific evidence of this.
What will Obama and his Socialist Party say when we have another 9/11, or worse? Another 9/11 would destroy what is left of our economy, our republic, and the Constitution. Chaos would ensue. No doubt the terrorists know this, and are making plans.
The release of the Gitmo rats is a major threat, but Obama is asleep at the wheel. He’s already a failure as commander-in-chief.
provides that individuals who supported al Qaeda or the Taliban are detainable only if the support was substantial.
so that means that if they only build 2 EID’s a year (and manage to kill a few American soldiers in the process) and are not involved the rest of the time, they’re off the hook, right?
So the men that died to put these evil bass turds into captivity were just fools.
Thanks Mr. President.
I have never seen anyone so incapable of siding with the people of what he claimed to have been his own nation.
It is looking more and more as if his loyalties lie everywhere but in America.
What a slap in the face of our armed forces.
Obama now equates the Taliban and Al Qaeda to nothing different that our own declared armed forces who fight according to international understandings.
Terrorism? Well according to Obama our troops are no different than that Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Killing innocent woment and children? Well according to Obama our troops are no different than that Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Throwing bombs in busy market places? Well according to Obama our troops are no different than that Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Roadside IEDs? Well according to Obama our troops are no different than that Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Beheadings? Well according to Obama our troops are no different than that Taliban and Al Qaeda.
These matters are above Obama’s level of understanding.
“Those Meddling Kids”
“Little Scamps”
“You Rascules”
It is a HUGE difference. More later.
We’ll just do what we did in the Pacific in WW2.
No prisoners.
With a president like Obama, who needs enemy combatants.
In a related story: "Bad guys" are now to be referred to as "Non gender specific individuals not necessarily identified as good".
For sure, they owe Osama, er, Obama and know it and will want to give some real payback for all his help. They ought to be more than willing to help out his team against the Infidels.
“What’s going to happen is that the terrorists will be bought back here for trial in Federal civil court. They will be subsequently let out on technicalities and will sue the government for money (Which will fund terrorist activities). The terrorists will then return to Al Qaeda and the Taliban”
Exactly right. And with our tax money at work again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.