Obama Team Is Divided on Tactics Against Terrorism

[Richard]

And so it goes...

Richard

Obama Team Is Divided on Tactics Against Terrorism
Charlie Savage, NYT, 28 Mar 2010

Senior lawyers in the Obama administration are deeply divided over some of the counterterrorism powers they inherited from former President George W. Bush, according to interviews and a review of legal briefs.

The rift has been most pronounced between top lawyers in the State Department and the Pentagon, though it has also involved conflicts among career Justice Department lawyers and political appointees throughout the national security agencies.

The discussions, which shaped classified court briefs filed this month, have centered on how broadly to define the types of terrorism suspects who may be detained without trials as wartime prisoners. The outcome of the yearlong debate could reverberate through national security policies, ranging from the number of people the United States ultimately detains to decisions about who may be lawfully selected for killing using drones.

“Beyond the technical legal issues, this debate is about the fundamental question of whom we are at war with,” said Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor who specializes in war-power issues. “The two problems most plaguing Obama in the war on terrorism are trials for terrorists and taking the fight beyond Afghanistan to places like Pakistan and Yemen. This issue of whom we are at war with defines both of them.”

In the years after the 9/11 attacks, Mr. Bush claimed virtually unlimited power as commander in chief to detain those he deemed a threat — a view so boundless that his Justice Department once told a court that it was within the president’s lawful discretion to imprison as an enemy combatant even a “little old lady in Switzerland” who had unwittingly donated to Al Qaeda.

But President Obama and his team, which criticized such claims as an overreach, have sought to demonstrate that the executive branch can wage war while also respecting limits imposed on presidential power by what they see as the rule of law.

In March 2009, the Obama legal team adopted a new position about who was detainable in the war on terrorism — one that showed greater deference to the international laws of war, including the Geneva Conventions, than Mr. Bush had. But what has not been known is that while the administration has stuck to that broad principle, it has been arguing over how to apply the body of law, which was developed for conventional armies, to a war against a terrorist organization.

An examination of that conflict offers rich insight into how the team of former law professors and campaign lawyers, nearly all veterans of the Clinton administration, is shaping important policies under Mr. Obama.

(cont'd)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/us...ce.html?ref=us

[JJ_BPK]

In March 2009, the Obama legal team adopted a new position about who was detainable in the war on terrorism — one that showed greater deference to the international laws of war, including the Geneva Conventions, than Mr. Bush had.

But what has not been known is that while the administration has stuck to that broad principle, it has been arguing over how to apply the body of law, which was developed for conventional armies, to a war against a terrorist organization.


An examination of that conflict offers rich insight into how the team of former law professors and campaign lawyers, nearly all veterans of the Clinton administration, is shaping important policies under Mr. Obama.

They probably found out that half of Barry's buddies STILL would be defined as terrorist no matter how liberal the interpretation...

[Box]

I prefer to think its because they are in over their heads...

of course I also think they would be in over their heads if they were standing in a puddle of rain water. There is no campaign to run anymore, there is a country to run, there is no more Evil Bush empire to second guess, and the teleprompter only plays words not solutions. The problems of national security are not going away, Guantanamo is still open and we still cant define what "bad guy" means... why is that?
We have watched over a year of cheesy speeches, kowtowing and preaching and yet, the "Platoon Leader" is still doing what he does best... campaigning

Why is the administration still campaigning for legislation that they already passed instead of doing things that will benefit our nations defense? Because they are out of ideas, in over their heads, looking for answers and waiting for a genie to pop out of the teleprompter.

...you wanted it, you got it baby. Time to lead.


or in more appropriate terms "WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO NOW 'PL' "


...just my two cents - I could be wrong

[Marina]

It looks to me to like their tactic is targeted killing (drone attacks) in order to avoid altogether the problem of what to do with potential new detainees.

Now, one could argue that extrajudicial killings are an abuse of power. Not me, just sayin'. We're not at war with Pakistan or Yemen.

[Lawndart]

Department of the Army
Personnel Policy Guidance for Overseas Contingency Operations

NOTE: The term “Global War on Terror (GWOT)” has been replaced with “Overseas Contingency Operation (OCO)” throughout the PPG.

Do you think Uncle Barry did this to show that he trying to take a different approach? Or maybe to show ownership? etc? I would love to hear your thoughts.

V/r
Chris

[afchic]

Originally Posted by Lawndart

Department of the Army
Personnel Policy Guidance for Overseas Contingency Operations

NOTE: The term “Global War on Terror (GWOT)” has been replaced with “Overseas Contingency Operation (OCO)” throughout the PPG.

Do you think Uncle Barry did this to show that he trying to take a different approach? Or maybe to show ownership? etc? I would love to hear your thoughts.

V/r
Chris

This has been in effect for over a year now. All it did (in my opinion) is cause a bunch of planners to pull their plans of the shelf, do a find and replace, andput the plan back on the shelf.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Marina

It looks to me to like their tactic is targeted killing (drone attacks) in order to avoid altogether the problem of what to do with potential new detainees.

Now, one could argue that extrajudicial killings are an abuse of power. Not me, just sayin'. We're not at war with Pakistan or Yemen.

That is good, right?