- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Joe Conason
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
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."
