Elian Gonzalez was in effect kidnapped by drama queens who defied the rule of law and threatened the safety of law enforcement.

While the Pulitzer Prize winning photo gives the impression that the big bad government was invading the home of helpless citizens, it was the only safe response to the people who had taken the child hostage. A close examination of the photo clarifies that the officer does not have his finger on the trigger of the gun--in accordance with training.

If the relatives accepted the rights of the father and the rule of law (the relatives defied an order by the Department of Justice)--and if they had not threatened to harm federal agents--and if the relatives did not have concealed weapons permits and other indications of being armed--the transfer could have taken place in an orderly manner.

Once again, the kidnappers are responsible for what took place--and they strung the media along.

I remember the photos of Elian appearing happy to be back with his father, here in Maryland where they were reunited.

The "victim of the jackboots" mentality of that era had a direct link to the bombing in Oklahoma City. So I get a little angry when I see it rehashed.

From the Associated Press, September 14, 1999:

"The federal prosecutor who raised questions about a possible Justice Department cover-up in the Waco standoff was abruptly removed from the case along with his boss, according to a court filing made public today. Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder recused U.S. Attorney James W. Blagg in San Antonio and assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Johnston in Waco from any further dealings in criminal or civil proceedings related to the siege. Holder appointed the U.S. attorney in a neighboring district as a 'special attorney to the U.S. attorney general.' . . . Johnston wrote Reno warning that aides within her own department were misleading her about federal agents' roles. The recusal notice provides no explanation for Holder's action."

The link is here: http://www.mcsm.org/waco18.html

No it's not an authoritative news site, but I assume it didn't make up an AP story out of whole cloth.

And much as folks might like to make excuses for what Holder said after 9/11, there's no excuse for what he said after Columbine about limiting speech on the Internet:

"The court has really struck down every government effort to try to regulate it. We tried with regard to pornography. It is gonna be a difficult thing, but it seems to me that if we can come up with reasonable restrictions, reasonable regulations in how people interact on the Internet, that is something that the Supreme Court and the courts ought to favorably look at."

Link here from Declan McCullagh's Politchbot site: http://www.politechbot.com/p-00374.html

Still feeling good about this guy?

All attorneys should work for free, that way the evil rich money won't taint them. Because a lack of evil rich money taint is important when appointing Government officials, and is paid close attention by the powers that be when making such decisions.

Besides, rich = evil.. or something, so a rich corporation is evil. Evil richness calls for an automatic presumption of guilt. Just imagine: a passionate lawyer got rich doing something it loved like practicing law. What a scumbag.

Oh wait... nevermind... I see now...

I don't have a problem with the defense of the unpopular. I am a member of one of the most maligned sub-groups in the world, and I appreciate the fact that there are always those who are willing to engage the opprobrium to make sure justice is served.

Its the profit motive behind law that makes me uneasy, not the defense of the unpopular.

Poor baby. As usual, it is all about omooex strutting around making sure everyone knows just how much it sucks to be poor persecuted omooex. If you really understood how bad it sucks to be omooex, you'd hate evil money and rich corporations too. Omooex lives through the transitive property. omooex = maligned sub-group, Latin Americans = maligned sub-group, therefore Latin Americans = Omooex.

The moral calculus is pretty simple. If it appears to be persecuting something then by the transitive property it is persecuting omooex and is therefore evil and rich (evilness and richness are the same thing) because omooex is neither (omooex = good, so !omooex = !good = bad).

... in heaven's aethereal vault, all that happens is by decree--save by the wicked in their ignorance.

What is irregular you even out.

order discord, and find unloved lovely.

`Hymn to Zeus. by Cleanthes. B.C. 331-232.

Many moose ago. born in Assos a coast town.

Asia Minor. hummed in the c-flat, Moon, hoofs.

Who's GBT?

Glenn, it is quite clear that Zahn was asking about whether or not these guys would be POWs by her allusion to only being required to state name, rank and serial number. I think Holder was (at least) clearly responding to that question. I think most people can agree that terrorists should generally not be given POW status as they blatantly and purposely violate the rules of war.

Now, you infer from his statement a stronger assertion that such captured people are not covered by any of the GCs at all. I agree that when removed from the context of the question, his statement does clearly say that. However, I would be reluctant to hang my hat on a single sentence in the midst of a TV interview when the interviewer and intended audience are lay people rather than legal scholars. If you have other evidence that backs up that this is truly Holder's view on the GCs wrt al-Qaida, then I'd be much more comfortable agreeing with your conclusion.

Now let's suppose for the sake of argument that you are indeed correct that Holder doesn't think such people deserve any of the rights and privileges under the GCs. We've had several different rulings (Yugo ruling, Hamdan, etc.) that have said that that GCs cover everyone in a conflict (when the GCs govern) -- that is that any captive falls under the categories of one of the GCs when the GCs apply.

My question to you and other legal scholars, though, is has it been clearly decided that the GCs (that we have ratified) legally apply to and govern our conflict with al-Qaida? I'm asking because I don't actually know the true answer.

Al-Qaida is clearly an international organization that is at declared war/conflict with us (and us with them) that is not a signatory to the 4 basic GCs. Furthermore, they neither accept nor apply the provisions of the GCs in their own conduct. Therefore, it seems likely to me that members of al-Qaida are not covered by the GCs at all because the GCs do not apply to our conflict with them as spelled out in common article 2:

"Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."

The last sentence conditions our being bound by the GCs on whether our enemy accepts and upholds the GCs. Since they do not, then it seems to me that we are not bound to uphold the GCs with respect to them.

So what would this mean in practice? Well, under the 4th Geneva convention we would still have to protect prisoners whose status (i.e. - membership in al-Qaida) was questionable or disputed until that question was answered by a well constituted court or tribunal. But, if someone freely claimed membership in al-Qaida or a tribunal found that they belonged to al-Qaida, then, in my view, the GCs no longer apply to that person. At that point, I think such people would be governed by other law. For example, the US could pass laws that specifically deal with how such people are to be handled, etc., so long as they were deemed constitutional, etc.

My primary point though is that a strong argument can be made that at that point the GCs no longer bind our actions against such people.