Tawfik Hamid, onetime protégé of Ayman Zawahiri, writes the following:
The real way to strengthen moderate Muslims in their fight against the radicals is to spotlight radical teachings and flush out those who believe in them. ….This is especially true in war: define your enemy correctly, and you will rally legitimate allies to your side. Blur what a battle is about and, stuck in the muddle, you are bound to lose…. Calling angina a “common cold” does not change its nature. It only prevents us from taking the necessary steps in treating it, which will only lead to further sickness, and possibly death. Playing word games with jihadists is not only meaningless, but plays right into the hands of the radical Muslim terrorists-who, to be defeated, must first be called by their true name….
We live in a world that is so concerned with political correctness that we refuse to Identify the evil around us. Last year the Bush administration eliminated words such as Islamist, and Jihad out of the national security jargon. President Obama is no compounding that mistake, by abandoning the term “enemy combatant” and all that goes with it
Obama abandons term ‘enemy combatant’
By NEDRA PICKLER
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration is abandoning one of President George W. Bush’s key phrases in the war on terrorism: enemy combatant
In court filings Friday, the Justice Department said it will no longer use the term to justify holding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
Obama still asserts the military’s authority to hold detainees at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. But his Justice Department says that authority comes from Congress and the international laws of war, not from the president’s own wartime power as Bush had argued.
The Obama administration’s position came in response to a deadline by U.S. District Judge John Bates, who is overseeing lawsuits of detainees challenging their detention. Bates asked the administration to give its definition of whom the United States may hold as an “enemy combatant.”
The filing back’s Bush’s stance on the authority to hold detainees, even if they were not captured on the battlefield in the course of hostilities. In their lawsuits, detainees have argued that only those who directly participated in hostilities should be held.
“The argument should be rejected,” the Justice Department said in its filing. “Law-of-war principles do not limit the United States’ detention authority to this limited category of individuals. A contrary conclusion would improperly reward an enemy that violates the laws of war by operating as a loose network and camouflaging its forces as civilians.”
Attorney General Eric Holder also submitted a declaration to the court outlining President Barack Obama’s efforts to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility within a year and determine where to place the 240 people held there. He said there could be “further refinements” to the administration’s position as that process goes on.
“Promptly determining the appropriate disposition of those detained at Guantanamo Bay is a high priority for the president,” Holder wrote.
The Justice Department says prisoners can only be detained if their support for al-Qaida, the Taliban or “associated forces” was “substantial.” But it does not define the terms.
“The particular facts and circumstances justifying detention will vary from case to case, and may require the identification and analysis of various analogues from traditional international armed conflicts,” the government lawyers wrote. “Accordingly, the contours of the `substantial support’ and `associated forces’ bases of detention will need to be further developed in their application to concrete facts in individual cases.”