Obama AG 2002: Terrorists aren’t protected by the Geneva Conventions
posted at 9:00 pm on November 24, 2008 by Allahpundit
Oh, now. You can’t hold him to this. Even Nancy Pelosi was tough on terror in 2002. Let’s just be happy the threat no longer exists.
In fairness to Holder, and in true Obamite fashion, his position on Geneva here is highly nuanced indeed:
It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohammed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not.
And yet, I understand what Secretary Powell is concerned about, and that is we’re going to be fighting this war with people who are special forces, not people who are generally in uniform. And if unfortunately they somehow become detained, we would want them to be treated in an appropriate way consistent with the Geneva Convention.
What’s that mean? I think he’s saying that in the absence of true Geneva rights, we should be good sports and voluntarily offer them Geneva-esque protections anyway. Whether that means the full monty or something less — Genera plus belly slaps in special circumstances, say — is a question for Specter and the Judiciary Committee. Although I trust we’ll discover that in his Hope to be AG, Holder’s since Changed his mind and decided that Mohammed Atta would have deserved POW status with all the trimmings after all.
Exit question via VDH: What if Holder shocks the world and sticks to his guns at the confirmation hearing? It’ll be fun to have the media suddenly reconsider and decide after seven years that Geneva protections are overrated after all. Click the image to watch.