- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
It is quite possible to follow Glenn's analysis and say that Holder wanted to deprive combattants/terrorists of Article 3 status. But quite frankly, the case is weak. From the interview excerpts it appears that Holder thought they didn't deserve full POW status. That has nothing to do with Article 3, which applies whether or not they are prisoners of war. The Hamdan case doesn't prove the opposite, on the contrary, it affirms it.
Holder used the word "Convention", not "Conventions, and the context (whether or not to grant POW status) makes clear in my mind that he was referring to the third Convention, not to the Geneva Conventions in their entirety with their Common Article 3. It really is a leap to say, on the basis of this interview, that he didn't think Article 3 was applicable.
There could be a contradiction with what he said a few days earlier, when he talked about holding prisoners until the end of hostilities - so, POW status - but his wording is legalspeak, "the case can be made" kind of stuff which doesn't really reveal his own opinion.
If this repeats another post, sorry. Didn't see my post on the matter and supposed I hit a wrong button.
