Posted tagged ‘guantanamo bay’

The Global War on Terror is Over

March 24, 2009

Make way for the “Overseas Contingency Operations Against Man-Caused Disasters.”  I wish I was joking.

In a memo e-mailed this week to Pentagon staff members, the Defense Department’s office of security review noted that “this administration prefers to avoid using the term ‘Long War’ or ‘Global War on Terror’ [GWOT.] Please use ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’ “

(Source)

As for the second part:

SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word “terrorism.” Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?

Napolitano: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word “terrorism,” I referred to “man-caused” disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

(Source)

For a presidential campaign that railed against the war in Iraq as a distraction from the war on terror, Obama’s administration sure does seem strangely intent to make us forget that there even is a war on terror going on at all.  War on terror?  What’s that?  I don’t even know what terror is.  You’re confusing me.  Stop it.

To add to it, the Obama administration will no longer use the term “enemy combatants” to describe the…well…the enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay (Source).  I guess since they plan to close it down, they want us to forget that there was ever a valid reason to hold them to begin with.  In the same Justice Department filing that announced the dropping of this term, it was also stated that those formerly known as enemy combatants could only be held if they “substantially supported Taliban or al-Qaida forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”  Apparently they believed that the Bush administration guideline allowing detainment of those who “directly supported” these terrorist groups was too broad…  If “direct support” is too broad of a term, I cringe to think what “substantial support” could mean.  Maybe we can only detain those who detonated the bombs?  I guess we’ll have to collect the pieces of them first.