Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
Glenn and others are incorrectly criticizing the remarks Holder made about the likes of Atta in the wake of 9/11. Holder was very clear and repeatedly said that such people are *NOT* POWs and he is 100% correct about that!
You're mistaken. I'm aware of the distinction you're drawing, but don't agree that what I wrote was wrong.
Holder didn't merely say that they weren't entitled to all of the Geneva protections. He said they weren't entitled to any: "they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention."
His reasoning was the same as the Bush administration's: that because they're unlawful combatants, they're not entitled to any of the protections. That's the position Hamdan rejected, and this is how I described Hamdan's holding: "it ruled that even Al Qaeda detainees are entitled to the minimum protections afforded to all detainees by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention."
Holder was specifically asked about the divergence of opinion between Rumsfeld and Powell and he sided with Rumsfeld -- that the detainees, to use Holder's words, "are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention."
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox
