The Bush Administration, in its fight against global terrorism, had taken on the mantle of expanded powers, using its own legal team to claim mighty powers; these powers started getting challenged after some time through public discussion and legal means. However, the American constitution is not pretty clear on many of these areas (given that this was a constitution written more than 200 years back, such vagueness is to be expected); what is clear is that a wartime President has the power to take many actions in the pursuit of a war (with Congress and the courts not having the ability to second guess many of these powers). The dispute over the past many years winding its way through the American higher courts were about the scope of the powers of the President, and these were tricky questions. After all, there was little doubt that many of the people who were imprisoned were those who were guilty of planning or had undertaken extreme forms of violence and against whom there was no direct evidence that would convict them, or the evidence was obtained through means that would not stand up in court. One of the terms that was used by the Bush administration and that led to a huge amount of discussion was the term ‘enemy combatant’. The Bush administration took the position that people termed as such were not allowed the same rights as those of a normal criminal accused, but could be held under the authority of the President.
continue reading "No more using of the term enemy combatants"