TheAgitator.com
More Change We Can Believe In Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss
Wednesday, February 11th, 2009
Harvard Law Dean Elena Kagan, President Obama’s choice to represent his administration before the Supreme Court, told a key Republican senator Tuesday that she believed the government could hold suspected terrorists without trial as war prisoners.
She echoed comments by Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. during his confirmation hearing last month. Both agreed that the United States was at war with Al Qaeda and suggested the law of war allows the government to capture and hold alleged terrorists without charges…
Last year, the Supreme Court dealt the Bush administration a setback when it ruled that these alleged “enemy combatants” had a right to be heard by a judge and to plead for their freedom. But the high court left unanswered the question of whether accused terrorists and others with suspected ties to Al Qaeda could be held for years without trial.
That issue is now before the Obama administration.
Just to be clear, what they’re saying here is that the federal government can declare someone an “enemy combatant,” then detain them “indefintely,” or for the remainder of the “war on terror.” Which essentially means forever (you don’t honestly think a U.S. president is ever going to declare terrorism defeated, do you?). No charges. No trial. Just, “Trust us, these people are guilty.”
And of course we’re now learning that way too many of them aren’t.
Closing Guantanamo had some symbolic value, but it doesn’t mean a thing if we’re just going to do the same thing in another facility.
John Jackson: “It’s time someone had the courage to stand up and say: I’m against those things that everybody hates.”
Jack Johnson: “Now, I respect my opponent. I think he’s a good man. But quite frankly, I agree with everything he just said.”
John Jackson: “I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far.”
Jack Johnson: “And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn’t go too far enough.”
Parodied by Futurama, lived out by Bush and Obama.
There is no hope.
OBVIOUSLY someone has replaced Obama with a Bush crony and some makeup.
Will the new detention facility at least create jobs for Main Street?
Again…is anyone surprised?
If people didn’t see this coming, then they aren’t really paying attention. If you decide these combatants are covered under the geneva conventions then this decision is exactly correct. The conventions state very clearly they can be held until the holding nation decides to either put them on trial or release them all depending on the “security of the state”.
Instead of dealing honestly with the issue, people used this to politicize the entire process declaring bush “torturer-in-chief”. Now that the shoe is on the other foot I’m wondering when those cool posters of Obama as a demon sucking the blood out of muslims are going to become available.
I’m just so sorry I “wasted my vote” by casting it for a third party candidate with no realistic hope of winning…when I could have wasted it by using it to make no difference in a contest between two candidates between whom there was little to no difference.
#5, that’s the problem with treating a rhetorical war like an actual war. Perhaps the only reason that we don’t do this with the “War on Drugs” is that it would put too many prosecutors out of business.
And don’t forget that power extends to even US Citizens. Jose Padilla was a US Citizen and he was disappeared for 3 years before the Bush Administration was forced into the courts to try him. And they fought it tooth and nail.
I’m shocked, *shocked* – that a system which grants ultimate and absolute authority to a small group of individuals is being abused. How could we have possibly seen this coming!
Quickly! Let us replace this small group of individuals with ultimate and absolute authority with another small group of individuals with ultimate and absolute authority! That will surely solve all our problems. Or wait, if we’re true revolutionaries, let us also replace the system which grants ultimate and absolute authority with another system which grants ultimate and absolute authority! That would be almost unthinkable, but would, without a doubt, solve all our problems.
Obama is becoming so transparent now he should just wear a shirt that says “Change? Fooled you, suckers!”
Don’t worry, no one would ever be declared an enemy combatant for political reasons.
He’s not really going to give up the powers GWB had, only the APPEARANCE of them. Duh. I guess that will at least “restore our position in the world” as long as those suckers are fooled too. Also when did the attorney general get to decide when we are “at war” with Al Qaeda? Last time I checked the constitution was pretty clear about when we are “at war”.
Unless I missed something, there is a real difference here. Kagan said we could detain people as war prisoners (POWs), not the fictional “enemy combatants”. POWs would have specific rights under treaty that “enemy combatants” do not have. While it’s not enough, if I’m reading it right it is a real change in direction.
Bill (#7) – that was pretty much the point I wanted to make. I don’t think it will be long before potheads become enemy combatants in the war on drugs.
I think Shygetz has the right interpretation. I still find this to be problematic, given that this isn’t a war that can be won, so detaining them indefinitely is ridiculous. BUT war prisoners do get rights under the Geneva Convention, so there’s at least some hope.
Aaaaarghhhh!
But, but, but… it’s a kinder, gentler form of tyranny? :P
Radley, why are you using past tense?
[...] of the reasons I like him was I expected him to restore respect for the Constitution. In light of this . . . Harvard Law Dean Elena Kagan, President Obama’s choice to represent his administration [...]
BUT war prisoners do get rights under the Geneva Convention, so there’s at least some hope.
Prisoners of signatories who were captured in uniform get rights under the Geneva Convention. The convention explicitly excludes from protection non-uniformed combatants as well as prisoners from non-signatories. During World War II, most of the countries involved signed and honored the Geneva Convention as a means of ensuring good treatment for any of their own soldiers held by the enemy. If countries were required to treat nicely the soldiers of signatories as well as non-signatories, few countries would have signed or honored the Convention, since there would be no benefit to doing so.
Some people seem to think that in a time of war, the participants should be expected to honor agreements which would work to their disadvantage. Such a notion is foolish. Participants seeking to win a war will undertake whatever action they believe will most effectively achieve that aim. They will not undertake actions detrimental to that aim, agreements or no.
The question of how ‘enemy combatants’ should be handled should be based upon what course of action will best serve the war effort. Rounding up people who are near an area that fighting took place and holding them perpetually without endeavoring to determine their role in that fighting is not apt to help the war effort, and may alienate enough potential allies as to harm the war effort. Thus, the war effort would probably be best served by a different policy. Unless the captured prisoners are from Geneva Convention signatories, however, the Geneva Convention has nothing to do with the issue.
I’ll be over here in the corner, biting my tongue, trying not to chide those who voted for Obama because they “hoped” for “change”.
Unless the captured prisoners are from Geneva Convention signatories, however, the Geneva Convention has nothing to do with the issue.
Eh. When you talk about the GC, you’re really talking about two different things–the Conventions as a legally binding agreement, and the Conventions as a baseline understanding of how POWs/detainees/prisoners/etc should be treated. It’s one thing to say that the Geneva Conventions, as a technical matter, don’t apply to captured AQ or Iraqi insurgents. It’s another thing entirely to say that, because of this, we can uniformly ignore the standards of treatment prescribed by the Conventions. And that’s my problem with this line of argument–it tries to assert the latter statement via the former. I agree that the Conventions probably don’t apply to AQ–but I think you have to make an affirmative case for why captured AQ don’t deserve similar protections as a matter of course, rather than just argue that the Conventions don’t apply and therefore we can do whatever we want to them.
Anyway, hasn’t Obama declared that all captured combatants will be extended GC protections in any case?
supercat,
The solution for this in WWII was to shoot them on sight. I now understand the reasoning behind that descision. Notice that there hasn’t been that many prisoners taken lately.