Prisoners of War or Enemy Combatants.

@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
January 26, 2009 2:28am CST
I think in ordering the US military to come up with a plan on what to do with the Enemy Combatants being held at Guantanimo Bay, Prs. Obama is missing the point on what it means to be Commander in Chief and President of the United States... I think his supporters are missing the same point. The only reason they are considered Enemy Combatants, or Detainees is because Prs. Bush designated them as such. Well, Prs. Bush is now Former Prs. Bush and Barack Obama is now the President. In other words, what Prs. Bush designated them is now a bit of historic trivia. Prs. Obama is free to designate them almost anything he wants. With the stroke of a pen, he can designate them POWs, suspects of criminal acts, persons of interest, or even, Free to go. The upshot is, it isn't Prs. Bush's "war on terror" anymore, it is now Prs. Obama's "war on terror". From the 11th hour of Jan 20, 2009, Prs. Obama took the full measure of the war on his own shoulders. So, is he going to notice this, or continue to pass the buck to others and hope it all comes out in the wash?
3 people like this
5 responses
Maggiepie
@Maggiepie (7816)
• United States
26 Jan 09
[b]Ted...he's a lying Leftist. Doesn't that give you your answer? Maggiepie[/b]
ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
26 Jan 09
Only part of it ;~D
1 person likes this
Maggiepie
@Maggiepie (7816)
• United States
26 Jan 09
[b]But...what's left? (No pun intended...) I mean, of course he'll do the worst for America; it's what Leftists do. Did I ever tell you my heroine is Ann Coulter? I seldom pull my punches, either.... Oy! Nobamaists-- Maggiepie[/b]
xfahctor
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
26 Jan 09
I believe ted in order to be officialy called a pow under the Geneva convention, they must be fighting in uniform under a national flag. Hence the term enemy combatant as they were more or less outside fighters who, though fighting for an ideal, were not fighting as a country. It is indeed now Obama's war on terror now, no matter what he chooses to call it, it is the same cause and the same fight. He is commander in chief and can do so as he chooses including the status of the detainees in GTMO. I hope and pray he recognizes the awesome responsability he has taken on and realizes the honor bestowed on him in being commander in chief of the finest young men and women this country has to offer, who, gladly put their heads on the block for us and for the republic. Obama, you bought this war, even if you didn't create it, you own it now.
ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
26 Jan 09
Exactly! They don't fall under any of the Geneva Convention protections. According to Geneva definitions they are, at best Mercenaries. Mercenaries are specifically exempt from Geneva's protection. The demands being made are political and false. Terrorists aren't criminals nor soldiers, they are simply a cancer and should be treated as such.
laglen
@laglen (19759)
• United States
26 Jan 09
I think the answer to your question is self evident. He will pass the buck. Through out all of this, everything will be Bush's fault. I wish we could fast forward through time. I am willing to bet that historians will say that Bush did some really good things. Don't get me wrong, of course he bungled some tings too, but we will see what they think of the depression that the dems are foisting us into.
xParanoiax
@xParanoiax (6987)
• United States
29 Jan 09
Excellent point. I'm becoming less and less hopeful that he'll be as good for this nation as he initially seemed to have the potential to be. I mean it's better than NOTHING. But with everything else he's doing, he risks coming off as wishy-washy. I don't want hlf-assed solutions and results...we need REAL action.
stoa2008
@stoa2008 (62)
• United States
26 Jan 09
No doubt there are SOME it Gitmo that aren't and never were terrorists and that do not hate the U.S. The only problem is that if they didn't hate the U.S. before, you can be sure they do now! I would like to see them get trials and I think Obama must provide them with reasonable, fair trials. After that we can sort out what to do with them.
ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
26 Jan 09
So why should they have trials but enemies killed in war aren't? What makes them more deserving of trials than a person in the sites of a US soldier on the battlefield?