« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

“Solicitor general nominee says ‘enemy combatants’ can be held without trial”

Heh.

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  February 11th, 2009 at 02:10 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Via (hee) Dissenting Justice (hee-hee), via (hee-hee-hee) Instapundit:

Solicitor general nominee says ‘enemy combatants’ can be held without trial

Reporting from Washington — Harvard Law Dean Elena Kagan, President Obama’s choice to represent his administration before the Supreme Court, told a key Republican senator Tuesday that she believed the government could hold suspected terrorists without trial as war prisoners.

She echoed comments by Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. during his confirmation hearing last month. Both agreed that the United States was at war with Al Qaeda and suggested the law of war allows the government to capture and hold alleged terrorists without charges.

This (Hee-hee-hee-HA!) is, of (HAH-HAHH!) course, not no (HWAAHHAAAH!) …ticiably
different from (MABBRRHH-HAA-HHHAHHH!) Bush’s posi (MBWAHHH-HAAA!!!!)…tion on the (HA-AAA-HAAAA-HAAAAWAHAA-HAAAAAA1!!!!!) subject, (HAHH-SMHGDG-SNORT) which should. make. for. some. in.ter.es.ting. co.mmen.tar.y. from. the. Left…

:silence:
:breaks:

MWHAAA-HAHH-AHHA-HAAAA-HAAAAA!!!!!! HA-HA–HAAAA-HAAA, HAHHH-AAHHAAAA, MWHOOO-AHHH-AHHH-BEWAAHH-HAH-AAAHAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!

:helpless waving on from on the floor:

Crossposted at Moe Lane.

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.phxgonline.com phxg
  • 6eorge Jetson

  • charlesmartel

    That’s the only sound you’ll hear coming from the left. They couldn’t care less about terrorists being tortured at Gitmo, about POWs being held without trial, about Abu Ghraib, about the Patriot Act, about phone taps, about Iraqis or Palestinians or about anything else like this. These were purely means of attacking Bush and Republicans that the media was happy to go along with.

    With Dems in power, you won’t hear a word of complaint about any of this, no matter how many “promises” Obama breaks.

    These are the same people who claim to support the troops. Why would we take them seriously about anything else?

  • Socrates

    I believe I detect the faintest odor of a small amount of irony in these circumstances.

    Oh yes, I believe this situation contains just the tiniest ironic whiff.

  • clammyc

    from “one of those on the left”, there is a difference between a suspected terrorist and someone that was rounded up with no evidence or charges for years.

    sheesh…..that was pretty obvious.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    Glad to hear it.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Just think, you royal flaming moron: You sold your soul for The One, and he won’t even do one thing for you.

  • charlesmartel

    Of course there’s a difference. But what’s your point?

    I going to assume you’re talking about prisoners in Gitmo. They are prisoners of war. Prisoners of war are not entitled to trial or due process. If Obama wants to reclassify them, then he certainly can and suffer the consequences, but they were legally detained and incarcerated, based on the rules of war.

    These are not criminals. They are enemy soldiers.

    And I still don’t hear any complaining about Obama’s broken promises from the left. Just semantics.

  • swglaw

    ah, so now that the “One” is in office, all those folks have gone from being “rounded up with no evidence” to “suspected terrorist”…got it…

  • clammyc

    I didn’t sell myself out for anyone. In fact, if you were to actually do something intelligent and look at my posting history, there would be much criticism of Obama as well as Democratic Congressional leadership.

    But why let facts or critical thinking get in the way of a cheap shot?

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I see you learned all the duckspeak.

    Now go drink your victory gin and donate to Organize for America. Schmuck.

  • clammyc

    enemy soldiers? Prisoners of war? Some are. And some aren’t. That is, if there was even a formal declaration of war, which there wasn’t.

    Your arguments are as hollow as the cases that haven’t been brought against most of the detainees since there is no case.

    But like Neil Stevens above, why let facts get in the way of a thoughtless rant?

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Being an idiot isn’t bannable. Spreading propaganda is.

    Go read about the 9/11 AUMF sometime, idiot.

  • bk

    Thinking back to
    a) Helen Thomas’s question the other night and
    b) How carefully we have to parse words from the Messiah and his spokesmouths…

    Couldn’t it be the case that Kagan says we can keep “terrorists” but Obama views them as “so-called terrorists” or “undocumented possible enemy combatants” or whatever phrase he wants to manufacture and so this doesn’t apply? It sounds like a lot of bluster but doesn’t mean squat.

    Is that any different than Obama saying more drilling and more nukes are “on the table” when that means “on the table but under such restrictions that they will absolutely positively never ever happen”?

  • rford

    The key language in the quote is “as prisoners of war.” The Bush administration repeatedly asserted that it was entitled to hold captured prisoners without treating them as prisoners of war, that is, without giving them the protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions. That was the shameful part of the Bush view, not that they simply captured people and held them without trial. The Obama administration certainly isn’t repeating that mistake.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    And you voted for that. Be proud. Somewhere else.

    Blam.

  • charlesmartel

    “Your arguments are as hollow as the cases that haven?t been brought against most of the detainees since there is no case.” – clammyc

    “Now you talk to me, or that precious immunity they’ve seen so fit to grant you won’t be worth the paper the contract put out on your life is printed on.” – Chazz Palmintieri

    clammy, the relevant fact here is this: Obama has shown zero inclination to repute any of the doctrines that Bush implemented in order to effectively prevent further terrorist attacks in our country, doctrines that the left wouldn’t stop whining about for the past six years or so, and yet the silence from the left has become deafening. I’m not debating whether or not the people held at Gitmo are actually terrorists. Neither your nor I have any way whatsoever of knowing for sure. I’m claiming that the folks on the left couldn’t really care less about them.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    …is that you have good reasons not to trust the guy’s words, while this unlamented fellow had no good reason to trust the fellow at all.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Why argue with some tool of Obama who will just get ignored except when it’s time to raise money?

  • charlesmartel

    I’m actually curious as to what rights you think are provided by the Geneva Convention – also, I’m pretty sure that a key facet to the Bush policy was that these prisoners, since they were captured out of uniform and were not part of an organized military, were not subject to any protections provided for under the Geneva Convention anyway. Bush was doing them a favor by granting them POW status. By all rights, they could be considered spies, in which case they would be treated much, much worse than they are at Hotel Gitmo.

  • olsmithie

    since they were not in unformed regular army of some geographic entity. Why do people think the US Constitution applies to them?

    Alas the Pubic School System strikes again….

    Regards

  • olsmithie
  • DefendUSA

    Should we call it, “The Road to Rendtion?”
    Yep, let’s make a special sigh…That would really piss them off.

  • Rod_Patrick
  • Aaron Gardner
  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    …or even a good idea. I think that we have a reasonably workable system already – it’s called Gitmo – to handle the unique circumstances of this problem, and it bothers me immensely that my government has decided to wholeheartedly embrace a program that’s going to get innocent people mutilated and killed.

    It’s going to be like all the fever dreams of the unhinged Left, in other words – only this time, it’s going to actually happen. And the same people who screamed then are never going to face the fact that they brought this about.

  • CarlSchurz

    You do not have to be wearing a full blown uniform to have protection. Just something to distinguish you from civilians while engaged in hostilities. Also bear arms openly. And take measures to prevent colateral damage.

    Nor, do you have to be part of a nation-state’s military to be protected. It covers irregulars and guerillas which the Taliban and other orgnanizations fall into. Independent Partisan groups are also protected. You do not have to be marching to the tune of the commanding officer of the opposition force to be protected.

    German spies in the Battle of the Bulge masceraded as American GIs.

    And, under the Geneva Conventions, torture is outlawed.

  • olsmithie

    “Just something to distinguish you from civilians while engaged in hostilities.”

    Typically, they did not stand out from civilians.

    ” Also bear arms openly. And take measures to prevent co(l)lateral damage.”

    They took no steps to minimize civilian casualties, even using them as shields.

    So, what is your conclusion of their status?
    Didn’t quite discern that from your post.

    Regards

  • olsmithie
  • charlesmartel

    “You do not have to be wearing a full blown uniform to have protection. Just something to distinguish you from civilians while engaged in hostilities. Also bear arms openly. And take measures to prevent colateral damage.”

    Yeah, the only thing that would apply there is the “bear arms openly” part. Certainly not that last bit.

    “German spies in the Battle of the Bulge masceraded (sic) as American GIs.”

    And were caught and executed. If only we were so efficient.

    “And, under the Geneva Conventions, torture is outlawed.”

    I thought you were trying to “dispel some mythconceptions.” (Sorry, is that some kind of new cyber-lingo, or do you have some sort of typing lisp?)
    The prisoners at Gitmo are treated better than a ton of people that live in the U.S. They have free food, free health care, just not freedom to murder. What evidence do you have of torture? And a made-up story about a guard pissing on a Koran doesn’t count.

  • penguin2

    Did clammyc mean the terrorists from the battlefield were innocent? Sort of like being in the wrong place, at the wrong time?

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    NT

  • E Pluribus Unum

    I didn’t know this was an IED, I swear!

  • olsmithie

    Rendition sm

  • olsmithie

    would you elaborate on what the libs mean when they say “rendition”?

    Regards

  • http://www.RedState.com/ETCartman Kenny Solomon

    ….. and it scares the living hell out of me that I’m even thinking like this.

    This woman does not like the military and….. ooooh, I don’t want to get angry, so I’ll just get to my point.

    Let’s just say one thing leads to another and “we the people” have taken the last camel that broke the straw back of our individual freedom and rights and Americans from all walks of life who will not allow our America to go under, make the leap into physically taking her back.

    At that point, are “we the people” not enemy combatants ? We’re rising up against the duly elected authority (granted they are usurping the laws and all that), we’re not wearing uniforms, not a recognized entity, etc.

    I hate myself for thinking like this, but I’m trying to think like them to help prepare for what I see coming faster every day.

  • Old_Crow

    Under the Geneva Conventions, and yes I have a copy (and used to teach the subject.)
    GITMO detainees are either:
    “Enemy Combatants” if they can prove they are members of an organized military (uniforms, etc) from a recognized nation state.
    or
    “Illegal Combatants” if they cannot meet the requirements of an Enemy Combatant.

    Illegal Combatants can be executed after a brief field military tribunal. The Geneva Conventions as well as international law, deal with terrorism very severly – recognizing the threat it poses to lawful society.

    Enemy Combatants can be held, without hearing, until the end of hostilities with the nation they represent.

  • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

    This is MOE (most of us along with him):

    These are those DailyKooks, HuffPukes, CodeCommies, that thought they voted for “Change” and “Hope” =

    Interesting how the morons in Hollywood made the “Rendition” film failing to understand it related more to their first “Black President” Clinton than it did to Bush

    Sing with me: God Bless America…..

    Stand beside her… to overthrow this current batch of Commies….

  • $peciallist

    lol

  • DefendUSA

    Love your sign, olsmithie.

  • DefendUSA

    I was just trying to get a rise outta the leftists. Sorry.

  • Wayne

    loved the smilies, especially the the one of the folks from kos, Huffpoo and the rest. “L” indeed.

  • Socrates

    Wikipedia says it well:

    In law, rendition is a “surrender” or “handing over” of persons or property, particularly from one jurisdiction to another. For criminal suspects, extradition is the most common type of rendition. …en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendition_(law)

    In the current context, the Obamites are going to take people from, say, Afghanistan, and render them unto, say, Pakistan, to be sure they are treated better than we would have treated them at Gitmo.

    I blame John McCain. And Oprah.

  • JoeG

    N/T