This letter is associated with the following article:
Letters
Wednesday, November 19, 2008 12:00 AM

Preliminary facts and thoughts about Eric Holder

Is Obama's likely nominee for Attorney General an encouraging sign for advocates of the Constitution and the rule of law?

Read other letters about this article

  • Wednesday, November 19, 2008 09:47 AM

    A few minor points of clarification r.e. POW status and Geneva Conventions

    Glenn, I took a course in the laws of war from Telford Taylor and have done both some legal work and independent research on the Geneva Conventions, so I wanted to chime in on this one particular point:

    I think you're getting a bit down in the weeds on this issue of conferring POW status to Gitmo detainees and in a way that suggests Holder was at one point a little soft on the Geneva Conventions. The POW distinction is really not that significant to the issue of humane treatment; its relevance is primarily related to legal liability of the captured individual for the acts he has committed. POW status is something that is conferred upon "lawful combatants." An unlawful combatant, in the most general terms (I don't have the conventions in front of me, so bear with me), is someone who is not part of the armed forces of a sovereign nation, someone who is not in uniform, who is not himself adhering to the laws of war and should fairly be considered a murderer rather than a soldier following orders in warfare.

    Regardless, however, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions guarantees humane treatment for all captured combatants, both lawful and unlawful. Being designated an unlawful combatant does not take away certain basic rights.

    What occurred shortly after 9/11 is that the Bush Administration announced that *none* of the captured combatants at Gitmo Bay would be considered lawful combatants. Powell and the State Department Legal Adviser's office took the position that, while Al-Qaeda members may not be considered lawful combatants, the Taliban members should have been, as they were members of a military acting as directed by a sovereign nation. They were thus entitled to POW status.

    None of this discussion, however, should have taken away from the basic principle of humane treatment embodied in Common Article 3. Quibbling over POW status somewhat obfuscates this very central point.

Most Active Letters Threads

660

Obama's exceedingly familiar justifications for escalation

The "new" approach to Afghanistan touted by White House officials seems quite old
543

The crazy, irrational beliefs of Muslims

Tom Friedman explains the real problem: stupid Muslims think the U.S. is about war and aggression.
437

The face of rotted Washington

Evan Bayh demands more debt-financed war - fought by others - while boasting that he's a stern "deficit hawk."
208

Bigotry wins in Switzerland

By voting to ban the construction of minarets, Switzerland apes the most extreme intolerance in the Muslim world
149

Mike Huckabee's fatally bad judgment

Brutality by another Huck-pardoned criminal suggests the 2012 GOP hopeful listened more to pastors than prosecutors

View all »

Letters Help

Currently in Salon