Thoughts from Ann Althouse.
Don’t pour water over Osama’s face, but make sure you don’t take him alive.
Read illegal combatants their Miranda rights, but kill them with Predators without a trial.
There have probably been worse AGs in my lifetime, but I’m having trouble coming up with one.
There have probably been worse AGs in my lifetime, but I’m having trouble coming up with one.
Were you a fan of Bobby Kennedy? 😉
No, but Holder’s worse.
Janet Reno was pretty darn awful!
Domestically, yes, but she didn’t screw up national security. Holder is awful on both fronts.
Or; actually fight a war in accordance with the laws of war. Which means that you can kill combatants, but once they surrender they must be treated humanely. It’s a simple concept.
Chris Gerrib Says:
[[[ … It’s a simple concept.]]]
It’s also a simple concept that terrorists aren’t fighting in the laws of war and don’t merit protections that we give those that are.
Email that to Holder.
–F
This does explain the uptick in predator drone strikes. Since Holder and company don’t really have a plausible strategy for dealing with captured terrorists (that wouldn’t look a lot like what Bush did), killing them is really the only way to go. So yes, I believe OBL would not be taken alive under any circumstances. The extraction process would be so designed as to use maximum force with a high (as in as close to 100% as possible) probability of death to the target. Works for me either way frankly.
Right:
POWs must be allowed a military trial. A civillian trial is actually a Geneva Conventions violation.
(Why? Because militaries historically raped and pillaged the countryside, and it is presumed that they can’t receive a fair trial in a lynch mob situation. Which also happens to historically be true.)
Chris, it’s YOUR AG who wants a suspect shot on sight without benefit of trial or even martial hearing, and who stated point-blank that even if another suspect was proven innocent in a court of law, he’d “never be released”.
Where’s all the enthusiasms for impeachment and war crimes trials, Chris? Or was all that indignation only a front for committing lawfare against the United States because you disliked the President then in power?
I actually watched Holder’s testimony. He did not say “shoot Osama on sight.” He said it was an extremely unlikely case that Osama would be caught alive.
Al – actually, POWs don’t get a trial, period. They also don’t get waterboarded. Illegal combatants can get a trial “by competent tribunal” which could be civilian or military. Or, we could treat a terrorist as a criminal, and skip the Geneva Conventions. Which means no waterboarding either, since we don’t do that to criminals.
Heh, I have an idea – how about, if the police catch the terrorist, we treat them as criminals. If the military catches them, we have the option of treating them as criminals or illegal combatants.
Na, that’s too simple – besides, we don’t get to waterboard anybody. /sarcasm off/
Heh, I have an idea – how about, if the police catch the terrorist, we treat them as criminals. If the military catches them, we have the option of treating them as criminals or illegal combatants.
As it turns out, the police can catch unlawful combatants too. And what happens if military police catch someone?
Jesus what a pant load that is Chris.
I saw it too, and you’re right he never said word for word that the new administration wanted to kill bin Laden. But how is “dead or alive”, “head on a platter”, COWBOY RHETORIC, but “…never be taken alive, stand over the body and Mirandize”, NOT!?
Or is just too nuanced for non-liberals to understand?
And if American non-liberals are not getting it, how do you suppose a guy in a mud hut, watching Al Jazeera on a hand cranked U.N. TV is going to see that Obama is NOT like Bush?
Because his middle name is Hussein? ’cause here’s a hint, there are guys in Iraq and Iran named Hussein, and they can’t seem to be buddies, can they? Are you using Jim’s BlackholeBerry to send in these comments from the alternative universe? Or did you guys get some kind of a clueless liberal discount on the same inter-dimensional service plan?
And finally, does pant load mean the same thing there as here? Nanoo Nanoo!
Chris Gerrib,
The point you seem to be missing is that the administration has kinda already decided to holding terrorists is (in most cases) not worth the trouble, so the best bet is to either a) kill them with predator drones, or b) hand them over to another country (called rendition) who can apply whatever pressure they deem needed to get the information they want. That is what the administration is actually doing, all moral posturing aside. Again, I don’t have a problem with that.
Chris L. – which terrorists are we releasing? Underpants Bomber and Hasan and KSM are still in custody, unless something changed in the past hour or so.
Chris Gerrib,
When did Chris L. use the word ‘releasing’?
Jiminator,
the msg gets partly scrambled transiting the black hole. On his side scrambled means clear, pant load translates to Obama, and so long as an ally tortures your enemy combatants for you, it’s NOT against the Geneva Convention. Hell, it might not even scare them.
We may never know!!!
The laws of civilization do not mesh with the nature of war, war is inherently uncivilized, that goes to the very heart of what makes it war rather than merely unlawful violence. Attempting to apply the rules of civilization to war, to attempt to civilize war, is a fools errand. You will either hinder your ability to fight war effectively, corrupt the rules of your civilization, or both. Indeed, this is a primary goal of terrorism. To blur the lines between civilized society and war, it cuts both ways. On the one hand is the police state, on the other hand is the ineffectual warfighter so hemmed in by legalistic restrictions that he or she is at a disadvantage on the battlefield (it’s possible to have both). Holder appears to be more than happy to lead the way down both paths.
@Chris L.: I think the uptick is based by a couple of factors. One is the Pakistani ISI being cleaned of Islamasists by the new civilian government there. Another is that an attack or capture of a Taliban or Al Qaeda leader leads to evidence of other leaders, creating a good (for us) chain reaction.
BTW, it looks like McChrystal isn’t on the same page as Holder. WaPo: U.S. commander says bringing bin Laden to justice remains goal.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/17/AR2010031702056.html
Another point I hate every time I hear it is… we’re capable of handling terrorists in civilian court. This is a total red herring. It doesn’t matter (and I’m sure we can.) It completely misses the point.
War has rules. We need to apply those rules to those that would attack us.
POWs can indeed receive a military trial. There’s a section discussing this very issue. “Incarcerated for duration” is much simpler though.
The “simple solution” is to make a determination before we even consider other charges of whether (a) US Citizen, (b) Citizenship renounced? (By belonging to a foreign military, say.) (c) member of a group that is either de facto or de jure are at war with the US.
If you have someone who says “I’m in AQ.” prior to capture you have someone who should be a military prisoner. There is absolutely no reason to have a trial trying to figure out the exact details of whether your precise activities merit “contributing to the enemy” or “acts of war.” You’ve declared yourself an enemy.
Adam Gadahn, for example, has renounced his American citizenship by declaring himself a member of a group that is (by both their accounts and ours) at war with the US.
As another example: Rommel’s cook might never have done anything meriting “acts of war.” But he could be “held for duration.” all the same.
I’m always amused at so-called “progressives” who insist that we follow the “laws of war” when they are completely clueless as to what they are. For example, giving Al Qaeda (and Palestinian terrorists) Geneva protections is in reality in violation of the conventions, but they don’t get that.
All combatants are granted protections under the Geneva Conventions, Rand. If you’d spent a day in the military you might know that.
Please do not presume to lecture me on a subject you have no experience in.
All combatants are granted protections under the Geneva Conventions, Rand.
Yes, and the “protections” granted illegal combatants are not what you seem to think they are. I don’t have to have served to know that. I read the Conventions, and their history. Did you?
Rand – yes. Under the Conventions, you have to give them a trial before deciding they are unlawful combatants.
Under the Conventions, you have to give them a trial before deciding they are unlawful combatants.
A military trial. Not reading them their Miranda rights.
Eric Holder was the attorney who facilitated the Mark Rich Pardon. You can always tell when Eric Holder lies… His lips move.
I agree definitely the worst AG in history. But then again, I think the best in history was John Ashcroft, the most reviled at the time, so what do I know?
Chris Gerrib,
Exactly what sort of trail have the people killed by our predator drones and the people we have handed over to ISI had? My point here is not to condemn what Obama has actually done to combat terrorism. My point is that people like Holder seem to think they are working on a higher moral plane when in fact the methods used are really the same as before. Killing people or handing them over to others who will (after “questioning” them) is not quite as “enlightened” as you might think.
Combatants cannot conceal their allegiance; they must be recognizable as combatants while preparing for or during an attack.
If they don’t, they’ve waved their Geneva convention rights.
“Under the Conventions, you have to give them a trial before deciding they are unlawful combatants.”
That’s fundamentally the entire point. The requirements of “unlawful combatants” are damn slim.
Proving the types of charges levied at KSM et al. is an entirely different kettle of fish – and completely unnecessary.
Perhaps you’ve forgotten about Ramsey Clark. Well, okay, most of his lunacy post-dated his stint as Attorney General, but still….
BBB
Where did the screwing idea come from that captured combatants deserve their day in court, military or otherwise. What they deserve is to be humanely imprisoned until the war is over. Then the most heinous may see a trial because you don’t want to release any that may cause trouble in the future. Every German soldier in WWII did not have a trial.
German POWs in WWII were members of a uniformed service captured on the field of battle. The Geneva Conventions go into some detail as to how they must be treated.
The Conventions also go into some detail as to how one should treat prisoners captured on the field of battle who are NOT members of a uniformed service. If they are obviously civilians swept up in things, they can be released. If they are irregulars (i.e., not members of a recognized uniformed service or not carrying Geneva Conventions identification) then they get reated rather…differently. I believe the relevant term is ‘Summary Military Justice.’
Truth in Advertising: Retired US Navy. I have read not only the Geneva Conventions, but the Montreaux ones as well (they are much more voluminous).
You’ve got my vote for ‘Summary Military Justice.’ Problem is, politicians don’t have the guts.