Setting the calendar back to 9/10

I have to admit, this is one of the more confusing things Obama has done. Not because he made another bad decision, I've come to expect that.

But yet again here is another decision to set the calendar back to 9/10 and the Lame Stream Media is ignoring it... except when they are saying how great it is. In this case, yet again the mouth breathing liberals are applauding something that they should be appalled by, but there are two reasons:

1. It changes a Bush policy giving them yet another chance to exercise their BDS, and
2. The One has proclaimed it to be so; so it must be good for he has spoketh.

And what did he declare?

Guantanamo inmates no longer "enemy combatants"
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration stopped calling Guantanamo inmates "enemy combatants" on Friday and incorporated international law as its basis for holding the prisoners while it works to close the facility.
The U.S. Justice Department filed court papers outlining a further legal and linguistic shift from the anti-terrorism policies of Republican President George W. Bush, which drew worldwide condemnation as violations of human rights and international law.
(article continues)

Now I know liberals have a hard time comprehending this so I will repeat myself yet again. (Anyone who remembers me from Y!A or has followed me from 360 may recall I talked about this ad nauseum when it occurring.)

Prior to President Bush using the term enemy combatants to describe non-uniformed enemies on the field of battle they had no standing in any local or international law. Traditionally these non-military combatants were treated as soldiers out of uniform and referred to guerrillas, but regardless of what they were called, or how what name was given to them, they were ultimately treated in one of two manners.

They treated as spies and debriefed and summarily executed. Or, rarely, they were debriefed and turned over to local officials who either incarcerated or executed them. They were never treated as POWs or civilian detainees.

The only international law concerning these enemy combatants (a phrase never used before to describe battlefield enemies) were the references to the treatment of spies in the Geneva Conventions, and the proscribed treatment is not good if you are a spy captured during war, because the Geneva Conventions do not protect, but condemn spies.

But being a moral man, Bush set up a designation for these people who before were not granted rights under the law, international or otherwise. And to further up the ante Bush gave rights to these enemy combatants int he Military Commissions Act of 2006. He said that they may not be summarily executed (save for the field of battle or other military operation) and their legal disposition must be determined by military tribunal.

These people who the United States captured are now our responsibility and the MCA:2006 was designed to protect the rights of these people who had no rights.

But the left, in their zeal to undo anything that occurred in the previous 8 years (witness the intentional demolition of the strongest period of economy growth the country had experienced), first announced the closing of the prison on Gitmo, an idea I share with them, and next announced they will no longer be referred to as enemy combatants, taking away their rights as proscribed by the MCA:2006. A move I strongly disagree with.
The left, when not rewriting history, have a penchant for citing history as though it is currently the status quo. The detention facility at Guantanamo is a perfect example of this.

There are currently 241 detainees at Gitmo; the vast majority picked up on the battlefield of Afghanistan. These are not civilians rousted from their homes as the left would have you believe, but they engaged in combat against US troops.

The US is in a quandary because the majority of the remaining detainees come from countries where they will face persecution, including torture or execution, for their actions, and Bush refused to let them be repatriated on those grounds Afghanistan and Iraq refuse to let the enemy combatants be returned to their countries, and many countries simply do not want these people repatriated.

Europe, on the forefront of whining and moaning about America, has demanded the enemy combatants be released, but decline to take them unless assurances that they are not threats can be given. Newsflash to the European asshats, these are all people who left their country to fight against coalition troops in Iraq and the majority of them traveled to Afghanistan to fight against NATO troops... they are a freakin' threat.

So by re-categorizing these criminals Obama is signaling two things...
He is removing their legally bestowed recognition and corresponding rights because he doesn't want them to have legal protection. Or, more likely, he is redesignating them as prisoners so they can be brought to the US and tried for crimes that occurred outside the US, over which the US legal system has no jurisdiction. And when they are found not guilty on those grounds the US will be stuck with people they cannot return home or incarcerate who voluntarily left their homes and families to kill NATO and western troops.

I can't wrap my head around why Obama would want to take away the very rights he protested the detainees weren't offered (he voted in favor of MCA:2006). I thought Obama was a lawyer? Oh wait, I forgot, he isn't anymore.