There is no such thing as terrorism!

[Gaspar]

Please note, the government has made another change to Title 10, Section A, subchapter I of the US Code. 

Previously, "Terrorist" was changed to "Unlawful Enemy Combatant," because the term "Terrorist" was considered inflammatory, and politically sensitive.

Now, "Unlawful Enemy Combatant" is no longer appropriate.

The new term to be used is "Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent."  This is in effect immediately, or until someone takes offense or finds the new term discriminatory or somehow racist.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/948a

[rebound]

Please note, the government has made another change to Title 10, Section A, subchapter I of the US Code. 

Previously, "Terrorist" was changed to "Unlawful Enemy Combatant," because the term "Terrorist" was considered inflammatory, and politically sensitive.

Now, "Unlawful Enemy Combatant" is no longer appropriate.

The new term to be used is "Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent."  This is in effect immediately, or until someone takes offense or finds the new term discriminatory or somehow racist.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/948a

My guess is this hinges on the "discriminatory" angle, but not in the way you mean.  "Terrorist" is a vague term, and terror-activities are engaged in by both friends and foes, and by "lawful" (i.e., state-backed) groups on all sides, including by the US forces.  (which fine, I guess, it being war and all...)  But "unlawful" is limiting, in that it doesn't allow us to acknowledge and work with fringe groups such as the Syrian rebels, et al.  "Unprivileged" basically means "somebody we don't like", and opens up US actions (pro and con) to a broader swath of groups.  Whether that's a good or bad thing depends upon a person's philosophy.

[Gaspar]

My guess is this hinges on the "discriminatory" angle, but not in the way you mean.  "Terrorist" is a vague term, and terror-activities are engaged in by both friends and foes, and by "lawful" (i.e., state-backed) groups on all sides, including by the US forces.  (which fine, I guess, it being war and all...)  But "unlawful" is limiting, in that it doesn't allow us to acknowledge and work with fringe groups such as the Syrian rebels, et al.  "Unprivileged" basically means "somebody we don't like", and opens up US actions (pro and con) to a broader swath of groups.  Whether that's a good or bad thing depends upon a person's philosophy.

Do we really need to contort ourselves over the terminology? 

It is imposible to fight anything with lexicon. It is a academic distraction that makes it difficult to execute any purpose.

It exemplifies a quest for validity to avoid productivity.

[rebound]

Do we really need to contort ourselves over the terminology? 

It is imposible to fight anything with lexicon. It is a academic distraction that makes it difficult to execute any purpose.

It exemplifies a quest for validity to avoid productivity.

You miss my point.   Yes, we do (legally, and with regard to how we can engage with and in other countries)  need to "contort ourselves over the terminology".   

You imply that this change in naming convention is trivial minutiae.   I suggest that while it is minutiae, it is not trivial.   This slight change will (I'm guessing) allow the President much greater latitude (without having to Congress for approval) in his various actions against "the bad guys", whoever they may be.

This may or may not be a good thing, depending upon a person's thoughts about Presidential powers.  But if one is looking for greater (legal) military action in our fight against ISIS, this is something they should be happy about.

[patric]

My guess is this hinges on the "discriminatory" angle, but not in the way you mean.  "Terrorist" is a vague term, and terror-activities are engaged in by both friends and foes, and by "lawful" (i.e., state-backed) groups on all sides, including by the US forces.  (which fine, I guess, it being war and all...)  But "unlawful" is limiting, in that it doesn't allow us to acknowledge and work with fringe groups such as the Syrian rebels, et al.  "Unprivileged" basically means "somebody we don't like", and opens up US actions (pro and con) to a broader swath of groups.  Whether that's a good or bad thing depends upon a person's philosophy.

Im guessing "Unprivileged" is also meant to let Netanyahu off the hook, since some of his bombings etc. could technically fall under the terrorism category.
OTOH, the clarity of the term "terrorism" has eroded in much the same way the term "murder" has, when you look at the catch-all "Felony Murder" has become.

Not everyone is buying into the new labels, though.  The group of NATO protestors who were arrested in a Chicago sting and charged with terrorism were acquitted on that charge,
http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2014/02/07/in-spite-of-political-prosecution-jury-acquits-nato-3-of-all-terrorism-charges/
but Pennsylvania thinks it will have better luck making the term stick to Eric Frein.

[guido911]

Not sure what else to call what happened in France recently in not terrorism. Here is the clown Bill Maher ripping away, and justifiably so (language):

[guido911]

Why can't Obama call the Taliban terrorists?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/taliban-terrorists-white-house/story?id=28588120