Posted by Tina
Re: No More Enemy Combatants at Guantanamo, by Andy McCarthy The Corner, NRO
** What Obama, Holder & Co. have done on “enemy combatants” is a somewhat more elaborate version of what they’ve done on Gitmo, rendition, state-secrets, interrogations, etc. *** Essentially, we’re no longer going to call our captives “enemy combatants” … but we’re still going to detain people without trial, and Obama claims the unilateral authority to decide who gets detained. **
** We’re no longer going to rely on the President’s Article II authority to detain these enem er, whatever we’re calling them (how about “undocumented freedom fighters”?) … but we’re not saying there is no such authority either and meantime, we’re relying on Congress’s post-9/11 authorization to use military force and on international law principles that, under these circumstances, are so overwhelmingly valid that Article II is just icing on the cake (notwithstanding that it was our basis throughout the campaign for saying that George Bush was destroying the Constitution and the United States). *** And we’re going to tell everyone that, because we’re much more careful vetters than that bad old administration, we’re only going to hold onto undocumented freedom fighters who provided substantial assistance to al Qaeda … even though we realize that this is exactly what that bad old administration meant, and did, when it held people who it said had provided plain old assistance to al Qaeda. (And, by the way, Obama reserves to himself the power to decide what constitutes substantial). **
This is how CNN reports the story
U.S. reverses policy, drops ‘enemy combatant’ term – CNN
** In a dramatic break with the Bush administration, the Justice Department on Friday announced it is doing away with the designation of “enemy combatant,” which allowed the United States to hold suspected terrorists at length without criminal charges. *** In a court filing in Washington, the department said it is developing a new standard for the government’s authority to hold detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba. *** 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 president has the authority to detain persons that the president determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks,” the document says. *** “The president also has the authority to detain persons who were part of, or substantially supported Taliban or al-Qaida forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act, or has directly supported hostilities, in aid of such enemy armed forces.” *** The Justice Department did not say how many of the approximately 240 detainees now at Guantanamo may fall within the new definition. The new construct clearly allows for the continued detention of admitted 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and a handful of his acknowledged al Qaeda operatives. *** The government says that it is developing a comprehensive detention policy and that the new definition applies only to prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and not at other military prison facilities. *** “This position is limited to the authority upon which the government is relying to detain the persons now being held at Guantanamo Bay. It is not, at this point, meant to define the contours of authority for military operations generally, or detention in other contexts,” the government said. **
The ACLU is not happy:
Justice Department Adheres To Key Elements Of Bush Administration Detention Policy ACLU website
** The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union: “It is deeply troubling that the Justice Department continues to use an overly broad interpretation of the laws of war that would permit military detention of individuals who were picked up far from an actual battlefield or who didn’t engage in hostilities against the United States. Once again, the Obama administration has taken a half-step in the right direction. The Justice Department’s filing leaves the door open to modifying the government’s position; it is critical that the administration promptly narrow the category for individuals who can be held in military detention so that the U.S. truly comports with the laws of war and rejects the unlawful detention power of the past eight years.” **
substantial: having a solid or firm foundation : soundly based : carrying weight *a substantial argument* *substantial evidence ** being that specified to a large degree or in the main *a substantial victory* *a substantial lie* b : of or relating to the main part of something
Hmmmm…leaves a whole lot of latitude for the man with that “can do” attitude!