US drops 'enemy combatant' term

[qsaark]

Friday, 13 March 2009
BBC

In a break from Bush administration policy, the US will no longer hold terror suspects as "enemy combatants", the Justice Department has announced.

Detainees will instead be held according to legal standards set by the international laws of war.

Under the new definition, only those who provided "substantial" support to al-Qaeda or the Taleban will be considered detainable, officials said.

President Obama recently ordered the closure of Guantanamo Bay prison camp.

Source:BBC NEWS | World | US drops 'enemy combatant' term

 

[qsaark]

By Terry Frieden
CNN Justice Producer

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a dramatic break with the Bush administration, the Justice Department on Friday announced it is doing away with the designation of "enemy combatants," which allowed the United States to hold suspected terrorists at length without criminal charges.

In a court filing in Washington, the Justice Department said it is developing a new standard for the government's authority to hold detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Detention facility.

The announcement says the Justice Department will no longer rely on the the president's authority as commander in chief, but on authority specifically granted by Congress.

And the government document says that individuals who support al Qaeda or the Taliban are detainable only if the support was "substantial."
The government said it will no longer have a category of "enemy combatant," which had been an important aspect of the Bush administration's legal construct for dealing with terrorism

Source: U.S. drops 'enemy combatant' term for Gitmo detainees - CNN.com

 

[S-2]

There are three groups of Guantanamo detainees-those whom shall be repatriated back to their home nation, those who will stand criminal charges in American courts and be transferred, and those deemed unable to stand trial for reasons of nat'l security disclosures but too dangerous to be freed.

Those who are there now and won't be charged nor sent back to their nations of origin are "substantial" in their potential threat so they'll meet that requirement, it seems.

More interestingly, is that changing the vernacular seems most relevant to the capture and detention of NEW prisoners. It can be assumed that there will always be men captured using sources and methods which can't be revealed through testimony. "Substantial" coupled with the congressional oversight necessary behind this will remove much of the ambiguity associated with these men once defined.

That Justice does so now with Congress seems appropriate as we've moved long enough down this road that Presidential prerogatives exercised as emergency powers, while useful and correct, have morphed into a long-term institutional requirements. These require greater definition and oversight which Congress can provide without bias for or against the issue. Clearly the presidency cannot avoid bias in it's actions, however required or perceived so.

B.O.'s Justice appointee hinted that it won't be easy to get out from under Guantanamo's shadow. I don't really care to do so. It's just a place. How it's used and under what oversight is more important. The rationales are sufficiently sound in my mind to detain indefinitely certain groups of men that can never be tried nor released. How to do so and under what purview must be the questions asked.

We're beginning to do so. This GWOT has challenged the west to review it's notions of personal liberties and requirements of justice. Any new and unusual threat would do so coupled with institutions which still debate old forms of warfare that are receding into the fold.

Change is good.

 

[TruthSeeker]

The prisoners that are not releaseable (too dangerous) or chargeable in US federal courts are prisoners of war except that they are stateless. They should be held as prisoners of war until the entity, whoever that may be, that they fight for negotiates for their release.

 

[Awesome]

There are three groups of Guantanamo detainees-those whom shall be repatriated back to their home nation, those who will stand criminal charges in American courts and be transferred, and those deemed unable to stand trial for reasons of nat'l security disclosures but too dangerous to be freed.

Those who are there now and won't be charged nor sent back to their nations of origin are "substantial" in their potential threat so they'll meet that requirement, it seems.

More interestingly, is that changing the vernacular seems most relevant to the capture and detention of NEW prisoners. It can be assumed that there will always be men captured using sources and methods which can't be revealed through testimony. "Substantial" coupled with the congressional oversight necessary behind this will remove much of the ambiguity associated with these men once defined.

That Justice does so now with Congress seems appropriate as we've moved long enough down this road that Presidential prerogatives exercised as emergency powers, while useful and correct, have morphed into a long-term institutional requirements. These require greater definition and oversight which Congress can provide without bias for or against the issue. Clearly the presidency cannot avoid bias in it's actions, however required or perceived so.

B.O.'s Justice appointee hinted that it won't be easy to get out from under Guantanamo's shadow. I don't really care to do so. It's just a place. How it's used and under what oversight is more important. The rationales are sufficiently sound in my mind to detain indefinitely certain groups of men that can never be tried nor released. How to do so and under what purview must be the questions asked.

We're beginning to do so. This GWOT has challenged the west to review it's notions of personal liberties and requirements of justice. Any new and unusual threat would do so coupled with institutions which still debate old forms of warfare that are receding into the fold.

Change is good.

I have a strong objection to making category number 3 there.

Give me an example...

Also how much feet kissing should the US do in begging for an apology to the ones that will be freed without any charges?

 

[TruthSeeker]

Also how much feet kissing should the US do in begging for an apology to the ones that will be freed without any charges?

No feet kissing is necessary unless the person was truly held without justification. In that case they should be compensated some large amount of money per year held. But just because someone is not charged does not mean they should not have been held and are "innocent". Not charged may simply mean that the evidence that the US authorities have is tainted (by hearsay, or coercive interrogations, or conflicting testimonies among detainees), or that the value of making the evidence public is not commensurate with the damage that might be done by doing so.

 

[Awesome]

No feet kissing is necessary unless the person was truly held without justification. In that case they should be compensated some large amount of money per year held. But just because someone is not charged does not mean they should not have been held and are "innocent". Not charged may simply mean that the evidence that the US authorities have is tainted (by hearsay, or coercive interrogations, or conflicting testimonies among detainees), or that the value of making the evidence public is not commensurate with the damage that might be done by doing so.

Thats what not charged means when Americans are concerned, why does it mean different when the rest of the world is concerned? Not charged is innocent... Even charged is not necessarily guilty. Innocent till proven guilty man. You guys came up with these concepts, not us.

If you're going to hide behind excuses, then what stops from every tom dick n harry from declaring whoever guilty.

I think the Americans who put them in jail in the first place need to go on trial for this! Justice should be served!

 

[TruthSeeker]

Thats what not charged means when Americans are concerned, why does it mean different when the rest of the world is concerned? Not charged is innocent... Even charged is not necessarily guilty. Innocent till proven guilty man. You guys came up with these concepts, not us.

If you're going to hide behind excuses, then what stops from every tom dick n harry from declaring whoever guilty.

I think the Americans who put them in jail in the first place need to go on trial for this! Justice should be served!

In the US justice system no one is ever found "innocent". If the charges against them are not proven, they are found "not guilty". Not guilty does not equal innocent. Quite often in US criminal jurisprudence the prosecutor does not bring charges and the "suspect" "goes free". But that has never meant that the "suspect" was innocent. Many times the prosecutor does not want to spend resources on minor crimes and many times the police have botched the evidence by procedural mistakes, making the prosecution not feasible under US rules of evidence. But "not charged" has never meant, and does not mean today, "innocent" for actions adjudicated within US courts. As opposed to the French (Napoleonic code) system, the US prosecutor must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise the charged person goes free. Their innocence is never established. Only that their guilt may or may not be proven. In the French system the opposite is the case. A charged person's innocence must be proved. If it is then the person is proven innocent. Only countries with French colonial ancestry practice the Napoleonic code, I believe. We don't in the US. Released persons are just that. Released. They may or may not be innocent, the US justice "system" doesn't make that judgment. The popular press, and the released defendant himself, may claim innocence but the US Government does not make such a claim or give exoneration.

 

[sergente rehan]

bro at the last every one know that true justice is no where in the world...even in the U.S. they are not angels like somebody claims! after all they are humains too and they protect only there own interest no matter how many innocents have to pay for all this...for this i don't blame them because everybody safeguards his own interests but the only thing which makes me angry that how dare they always balaim n point fingers on us and other countries? they have done far away more horrible things...atleast we dosn't bring the whole world in war!
And at the last also the U.S. are Jews slaves...so they aren't diffrent from the 3rd world countries which they domain!

 

[Tang0]

Something I never really understood was why all this legalistic dancing happened in the fist place. Try the ones who can be tried, interrogate those who can't be tried for a week or two, and if they don't produce actionable intelligence, shoot them in the back of the head and dump the bodies where they won't be found. Keeping them in painful limbo under brutal conditions serves no purpose, and eventually comes to the attention of the global media. Now, you can make some claims to morals, but really, is just shooting them any more or less morally defensible than holding them indefinitely whilst torturing them? I don't think so, and a .17 $ bullet is a great deal cheaper than complicated detention centers and overseas flights done in secret. Not to mention long term personnel costs.

 

[Tang0]

Only countries with French colonial ancestry practice the Napoleonic code, I believe. We don't in the US. Released persons are just that. Released. They may or may not be innocent, the US justice "system" doesn't make that judgment. The popular press, and the released defendant himself, may claim innocence but the US Government does not make such a claim or give exoneration.

Napoleonic code is followed in Louisiana, and furthermore, the US is not a monolithic entity. Each state is allowed to establish a criminal code as it wishes, so long as it does not conflict with the constitution.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Napoleonic code is followed in Louisiana, and furthermore, the US is not a monolithic entity. Each state is allowed to establish a criminal code as it wishes, so long as it does not conflict with the constitution.

While Louisiana does follow Napoleonic traditions for civil law, its criminal law is like the rest of the US with a presumption of innocence and the burden on the prosecution to prove guilt. Probably the US Constitution Bill of Rights would conflict too severely with the Napoleonic criminal approach for it to have survived after Lousiana was admitted as a State. What I summarized above about a person being declared "not guilty" rather than "innocent" is true of all 50 States regardless of minor differences in codes and procedures among the States.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Something I never really understood was why all this legalistic dancing happened in the fist place. Try the ones who can be tried, interrogate those who can't be tried for a week or two, and if they don't produce actionable intelligence, shoot them in the back of the head and dump the bodies where they won't be found. Keeping them in painful limbo under brutal conditions serves no purpose, and eventually comes to the attention of the global media. Now, you can make some claims to morals, but really, is just shooting them any more or less morally defensible than holding them indefinitely whilst torturing them? I don't think so, and a .17 $ bullet is a great deal cheaper than complicated detention centers and overseas flights done in secret. Not to mention long term personnel costs.

They are not kept in painful limbo or brutal conditions as Obama's new attorney general, Eric Holder, found to his surprise when he visited recently. Following your argument we should also abolish life sentences in favor of swift implementation of the death penalty for most violent civilian crimes. While I might be able to rationalize doing that in many more cases, our society is not ......

 

[Tang0]

Tales from torture's dark world - International Herald Tribune

If those are not "Brutal Conditions" or "Torture", please, tell me what is? I know the article is not necessarily about GITMO as such, but declassified reports from FBI agents who witnessed the interrogation procedures there indicate that often enough, similar things happened.

FBI Agents Allege Abuse of Detainees at Guantanamo Bay (washingtonpost.com)

You are correct about Louisiana, at least, the verdict returned is Not Guilty, which, because of the concept of "Double Jeopardy" is exactly the same as innocence as far as the criminal courts are concerned. (Although you can always get another go in a civil trial...) I however, am not a legal scholar, and this is a forum about military decisions, so really not the place.

 

[Awesome]

In the US justice system no one is ever found "innocent". If the charges against them are not proven, they are found "not guilty". Not guilty does not equal innocent. Quite often in US criminal jurisprudence the prosecutor does not bring charges and the "suspect" "goes free". But that has never meant that the "suspect" was innocent. Many times the prosecutor does not want to spend resources on minor crimes and many times the police have botched the evidence by procedural mistakes, making the prosecution not feasible under US rules of evidence. But "not charged" has never meant, and does not mean today, "innocent" for actions adjudicated within US courts. As opposed to the French (Napoleonic code) system, the US prosecutor must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise the charged person goes free. Their innocence is never established. Only that their guilt may or may not be proven. In the French system the opposite is the case. A charged person's innocence must be proved. If it is then the person is proven innocent. Only countries with French colonial ancestry practice the Napoleonic code, I believe. We don't in the US. Released persons are just that. Released. They may or may not be innocent, the US justice "system" doesn't make that judgment. The popular press, and the released defendant himself, may claim innocence but the US Government does not make such a claim or give exoneration.

Nobody has to be found innocent. In ALL justice systems, you ARE innocent till proven guilty. I think to say otherwise would be a crime in itself!

I'm pretty sure once people charge someone and are not able to get a verdict against them, or their prosecution fails, many times the accused counter sues them and takes them to the cleaners!

OJ Simpson was was found not guilty. He came out of the court as an innocent man, theres no one who can say "Ok, you got off on a technicality so lets find another category to place you in.

Michael Jackson was found not guilty. There was lack of evidence against charges of pedophilia. Imagine, if people were like "Oh theres just no evidence of you being a pedo, but because there's no evidence of you NOT being a pedo, we should keep treating you like a pedo".

Imagine the implications of what you're arguing for.

It's a guilty till proven innocent world you're asking for. It's like saying American people should gripe about the fact that they have to let go criminals due to lack of evidence and never accept their innocence.

How else would someone be proven innocent? You're innocent when you're not guilty, no in betweeners here.