Obama abandons term 'enemy combatant'

[stampede2873]

The Obama administration is abandoning one of President George W. Bush's key phrases in the war on terrorism: enemy combatant.


Yes, they will now be known as "Plaintiff"

**

 

[E-Ann-Hilden]

Glad someone is finally trying to upholding the Geneva Convention in this country.

 

[BlueBalls]

Glad someone is finally trying to upholding the Geneva Convention in this country.

:thumbsup:

Try to live by you're own philosophy, in preaching the use of such protocols to other nations, the use of them by the preacher seems to be a given dont you think?

 

[Boothbabe]

I wonder why no one has asked the most important question about the "war on terror". Would the US government have started it if they thought they had a chance of winning it?

 

[titsrock]

^
Yes because the war on terror is nothing but a business plan for Military/Industrial interests (also known as Big Republican Donors)....

 

[Facial_King]

The Obama administration is abandoning one of President George W. Bush's key phrases in the war on terrorism: enemy combatant.


Yes, they will now be known as "Plaintiff"

**

...and if it's so cut-and-dried just how guilty they are, convicting them and sending them away won't be a problem, will it?

Kinda hard to know what there is to complain about there.

:dunno:

 

[titsrock]

^
Exactly. Except we just rounded up a bunch of "varmints and rascals" we thought were bad even though we have no idea what they did or if they were planning to do anything. That's "Texas Justice," baby...git 'em 'for they git you...

 

[mrhp1]

Great, another way the "Tool" is kissing the terrorists ass!

 

[HeartBroker]

As Mr. Carlin always said, you can change the term but it doesn't change the condition.

Jesus healed the cripples.
Call it disabled or differently abled or handi-capable!
They are still cripples.

Enemy combatant, plaintiff, pole-smoker, still the same.

 

[bodie54]

Great, another way the "Tool" is kissing the terrorists ass!

Yeah. You know, what we really should do is vow to get their leader, dead or alive, drop about a billion tons of ordinance in his general vicinity, then after failing to kill him claim we don't care about him anymore. Then we should invade a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with 9/11, all but bankrupt ourselves in the process, treat anyone that doesn't come along for the ride as pussies and traitors, challenge the insurgents in that nation to "bring it on", then cut benefits for our veterans.

Boy if only we'd do that kind of stuff we'd really show 'em who's boss! :thumbsup:

 

[Facial_King]

Yeah. You know, what we really should do is vow to get their leader, dead or alive, drop about a billion tons of ordinance in his general vicinity, then after failing to kill him claim we don't care about him anymore. Then we should invade a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with 9/11, all but bankrupt ourselves in the process, treat anyone that doesn't come along for the ride as pussies and traitors, challenge the insurgents in that nation to "bring it on", then cut benefits for our veterans.

Boy if only we'd do that kind of stuff we'd really show 'em who's boss! :thumbsup:

I can't rep you for it now - but I gotta say, that was awesome.

:thumbsup::glugglug:

 

[scooter]

Glad someone is finally trying to upholding the Geneva Convention in this country.

The GC does not apply to terrorists. They are not fighting under a sovereign state or flag, nor are they in uniform. They are butchers and animals. They should've been shot on sight, not pampered at Gitmo. Obama is a fool of mythic proportions.

 

[E-Ann-Hilden]

The GC does not apply to terrorists. They are not fighting under a sovereign state or flag, nor are they in uniform. They are butchers and animals. They should've been shot on sight, not pampered at Gitmo. Obama is a fool of mythic proportions.

Ok? So if American troops invade Somalia and they are captured, do you want the same done to them under the same premise? I doubt the Rogue's that run that country would abide, but for a point.

Also many did not prove to be terrorists, but they were treated and tortured as such. Is that the way to get info? It is well documented that a tortured person will eventually give up some useless info and sometimes not the truth at all to evade the pain.

I am all for intense interrogation but we may have crossed the line in my book. "W" was a fool in my book! should have listened more to the head rather than god and the gut heart.

 

[georges]

so according to you, a djihadist or an al quaeda member is not an enemy combatant? :wtf: This coming from the Obama administration, I am not astonished. This administration is definitely a horrible copy paste of the clinton administration with bigger shit heads.

 

[Will E Worm]

A "PC" word to describe enemies of the state.

Look up what an enemy combatant is.

"Illegal" down loaders are considered "enemies of the state."

Basically they can call you one if they want to and hold you without a conviction or trial.

 

[Facetious]

You bums leftist loyalists who make claim that you're compassionate about the geneva convention and only the will of the geneva convention are put ons ! You could care less about America's service men and women, in the flesh anyway. What you do give a shit about is the acquisition of political assets. That's all ! So don't try to come off as being compassionate when it is clear that you only offer front untruths to support an underlying ulterior motive.


Here's another one where you guys reveal your fradulent nature

The Department of Defense would be required to grant journalists access to ceremonies honoring fallen military personnel under a bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The legislation is significant because it would, for the first time since Vietnam, let photojournalists capture the powerful images of flag-draped caskets arriving on American soil during wartime.

With All Due Respect to the clip above, if you would excuse me -
The media faaags don't care about, nor would they honor the fallen honorable service men and women upon there return home to Dover, they only want the imagery so that they can use it as political capital against their political foes.


buncha lifetime govt dependent louts ! Sad too !

 

[pikachar]

Glad someone is finally trying to upholding the Geneva Convention in this country.

Well it will always be a one way street, we will uphold them, and no one else will. Anyways when you don't fight for a soverign nation, you can't belch out GC violations.... kinda the cornerstone of what the GC is all about.

...and if it's so cut-and-dried just how guilty they are, convicting them and sending them away won't be a problem, will it?

Kinda hard to know what there is to complain about there.

:dunno:

Personally, I'd agree with you, but for some odd reason I believe this comment to be completely sarcastic.

If they engaged US or NATO forces, then no-shit, they have a tie to terror. Don't believe that, well then go find some Left-wing BS and post about it. Like I've posted before certain "donations" get directly siphoned by extremest organizations like AQ. Now if you donate, are you a terrorist is more the question to be asking yourself. Also, let's dig deeper into this scenario of detainees. You have to do something to get detained, not like we snatch and grab everyone in sight, once we get shot at. So are they guilty of something, yeah no doubt, but held in our legal system... who knows...

so according to you, a djihadist or an al quaeda member is not an enemy combatant? :wtf: This coming from the Obama administration, I am not astonished. This administration is definitely a horrible copy paste of the clinton administration with bigger shit heads.

If you read, it's about detainees... You still shoot at us, you are still an enemy combatant, or hostile force (whatever you prefer). Even though it would be funny for some of us to say we just shot a "defendant" and saved tax dollars from litigation fees... lol

So using my above posts, yeah if you did something, you got rolled up, then our constitution applies... oh wait except for Iraq... where we have a SOFA. Yeah forgot to mention that, Iraqis deal with Iraqis now... holy crap, and that was during the Bush Administration.

___________________________

The Obama administration is trying to protect top Bush administration military officials from lawsuits brought by prisoners who say they were tortured while being held at Guantanamo Bay.

The Justice Department argued in a filing Thursday with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that holding military officials liable for their treatment of prisoners could cause them to make future decisions based on fear of litigation rather than appropriate military policy.

The Obama administration was expected to take another stand affecting Guantanamo detainees' lawsuits Friday. A federal judge overseeing lawsuits of detainees challenging their detention has given the Justice Department until the close of business to give its definition of whom the United States may hold as an "enemy combatant."

What you should be doing is praising Obama for trying to do the right thing, and stop the nonsense of burning people who can't sit back and worry about being in lengthy litigation while his troops are in the middle of a war.

I for one am grateful that this President actually cares more about war fighting, and lawsuits and is doing anything in his power to block, stall or halt the detainee lawsuits. They aren't US citizens, but being held in US territory and having US rights of custody... If that isn't free living then I don't know what is. They have shelter, 3 hot meals, and god knows what else... I bet you it's better than living in a mud hut, with no power, and deplorable living conditions.... think about that!

If this isn't more centered than any of my other posts, then I just don't know how close to Center Mass I could be.... :thumbsup:

 

[E-Ann-Hilden]

You bums leftist loyalists who make claim that you're compassionate about the geneva convention and only the will of the geneva convention are put ons ! You could care less about America's service men and women, in the flesh anyway. What you do give a shit about is the acquisition of political assets. That's all ! So don't try to come off as being compassionate when it is clear that you only offer front untruths to support an underlying ulterior motive.


Here's another one where you guys reveal your fradulent nature



With All Due Respect to the clip above, if you would excuse me -
The media faaags don't care about, nor would they honor the fallen honorable service men and women upon there return home to Dover, they only want the imagery so that they can use it as political capital against their political foes.


buncha lifetime govt dependent louts ! Sad too !

So they are no people serving in the Armed Services that feel this way? Why is this a liberal stance? My friends and family served in the Armed Services. I support them wholeheartedly and I would never want them to be tortured or put in too conditions that violate the Geneva Convention.

We should be a great country that should set an example for the rest of the world.