Plus ça change....
In yet another example of the president striking a grand rhetorical pose to please his base, only to subsequently assume a position that closely mirrors Bush administration policy, Obama has decided to redefine those troublesome captured (and yet to be captured) "enemy combatants" out of existence by choosing to call them something different.
Obama wants to have the advantage of — and take credit for the security provided by — the Bush post-9/11 policies. However, he has a rabid left-wing base that rejects the notion that there is a war and wants terrorism returned to the courts (and by the way, if/when that happens, that base will immediately go back to arguing that the court proceedings are inherently unfair, which is what it did for the eight years before 9/11). Throughout the campaign, Obama stirred this base — which consequently voted in droves for him — by trashing the policies he now wants to leave in place. So now he is in a quandary: "How do I keep these policies while preventing a revolt from these crazy people — er, I mean, my voters?"What Obama, Holder & Co. have done on "enemy combatants" is a somewhat more elaborate version of what they've done on Gitmo, rendition, state-secrets, interrogations, etc. Call it, as the editors of NRO have called it, "Change George Bush Could Believe In."
Essentially, we're no longer going to call our captives "enemy combatants" ... but we're still going to detain people without trial, and Obama claims the unilateral authority to decide who gets detained.
UPDATE 3/16: Taranto, after noting the re-branding of enemy combatants says...
In case you think the Obama administration has gone soft on terrorists, blogger Lyle Denniston notes that in another case Eric Holder's Justice Department has asserted that "aliens held at Guantanamo do not have due process rights." (Hmm, "aliens" seems like such a harsh word . . .)Just between us, they're still enemies, and they're still combatants. But if calling them something else will enhance America's security by confusing the civil liberties weenies for a while, that is a good thing.
---
The one shortcoming in this semantic offensive is that the Obama administration does not seem to have put forward a euphemism for "enemy combatant."
---
We visited Guantanamo a few years ago and were struck by how hospitable the place was: Detainees get three ample meals a day, books and games, mail privileges and generous accommodations for their religious practices. The U.S. treats them the way any guest would want to be treated (with obvious limitations owing to their desire to kill us all). So why not call them "company"?