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.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Creepy mustache.

SouthernGent on November 24, 2008 at 9:06 PM

Such a noble idea,have your enemies treat
you with respect and courtesy,accept tho,

when your enemy,two years later had a tactic
called ‘Beheadings’!

canopfor on November 24, 2008 at 9:09 PM

Screw this discussion about terrorist rights- they will have them in spades under an Obama administration, let’s talk about Holder’s involvement in getting the Rich pardon through in time for Clinton to cash that big check for his Presidential Library!

P.S. Compare the sleazy way the Clintons begged for money for that library with the way GWB is leaving office. Any mention of his library or further plans? NO!

highhopes on November 24, 2008 at 9:10 PM

Silly man. He thinks words still mean what the dictionary says they mean. He will be disabused of that olde fashioned idea p.d.q. by the post-modern media/academic mafia.

“All hail the mighty narrative! Look upon it and weep, you seekers of truth!”

stevieray on November 24, 2008 at 9:10 PM

Holder better start drinking the Kool-Aid,
and sooner the better if he wants to join,

the Clinton’s third term Obama Administration!

canopfor on November 24, 2008 at 9:12 PM

Well well well. The wonders of video. How will he wiggle out of this one?

BTW. He looks like something out of Saturday Night Fever. Maybe that look is retro…maybe not.

katy on November 24, 2008 at 9:12 PM

Look!!! it’s Janet Reno’s #2…more Marc Rich, FLAN, Waco type decisions are just around the corner!!!

Gohawgs on November 24, 2008 at 9:19 PM

HUGS NOT PRISON !

Yes we can ….

Chimp 6 on November 24, 2008 at 9:23 PM

I think extracting from this that he doesn’t think they’re afforded Geneva protections is result-driven analysis. He says he has a hard time seeing how they would be prisoners of war, but he ultimately would want to exhibit their behavior to the rest of the world. The treatment given to enemy combatants surely isn’t what Mr. Holder would like to show the world I presume. Subsequently, I think he would give them the Geneva protections.

All this is is the typical lip service many liberals give in relation to recognizing that Al Qaeda isn’t a typical army. But ultimately, they will side with the Geneva Conventions every time. It seems Mr. Holder is quite skillful at playing both sides of the fence, like his good friend Senator Obama (I refuse to refer to him as the President-Elect). :o)

His expression of doubt about whether Mohammed Atta would be afforded POW status had he survived the 9/11 attack is quite sharp, however. I’ve never heard that rationale before.

FLcapitalistthug on November 24, 2008 at 9:30 PM

well, this can be good, real good, lets see Leahy and crew give a him a pass on it.

rob verdi on November 24, 2008 at 9:35 PM

So Burt Reynolds is our new AG?

Nice tan, Burt.

Bishop on November 24, 2008 at 9:38 PM

well, this can be good, real good, lets see Leahy and crew give a him a pass on even mention it.

rob verdi on November 24, 2008 at 9:35 PM

FIFY

dmh0667 on November 24, 2008 at 9:42 PM

they will have them in spades under an Obama

highhopes on November 24, 2008 at 9:10 PM

Racist

broker1 on November 24, 2008 at 9:47 PM

1. The Democrats won’t ask him any questions about it.

2. I’m relieved that Obama is choosing sane people with experience for many of his cabinet level advisors.

funky chicken on November 24, 2008 at 10:08 PM

I’m not sure how many terrorists will be broken by belly slaps…

BadgerHawk on November 24, 2008 at 10:08 PM

It was never about the policy anyways. It was only ever about opposing anything and everything President Bush did. President Obama is not President Bush, therefore there’s no need to oppose his policies. Duh.

JohnJ on November 24, 2008 at 10:15 PM

President Obama is not President Bush, therefore there’s no need to oppose his policies. Duh.

JohnJ on November 24, 2008 at 10:15 PM

That suggests that the bastard-elect will actually settle on specific policies different than the current administration. That would require and agenda and a plan and I’m still waiting for both.

highhopes on November 24, 2008 at 10:25 PM

now here is a case where i can agree with someone on the “O” team. now i can shed myself of my “white guilt”.

stormin1961 on November 24, 2008 at 11:20 PM

Well well well. The wonders of video. How will he wiggle out of this one?

Easy. It doesn’t make page 63 in the NYT.

Basilsbest on November 24, 2008 at 11:29 PM

That suggests that the bastard-elect will actually settle on specific policies different than the current administration. That would require and agenda and a plan and I’m still waiting for both.

highhopes on November 24, 2008 at 10:25 PM

Actually, it suggests that it doesn’t matter what Obama’s policies are. He’s centrist! I know he’s centrist because I am told over and over ad infinitum that he is. That proves his policies, whatever they are, are better than Bush’s.

JohnJ on November 24, 2008 at 11:35 PM

The AG’s dilemma in the koan form:

First, there is a mountain;
then there is no mountain;
then there is.

(Catchy tune, also.)

profitsbeard on November 24, 2008 at 11:59 PM

Did he say that special forces are not considered in uniform? Is that true?

Dollayo on November 25, 2008 at 12:24 AM

Creepy mustache.

SouthernGent on November 24, 2008 at 9:06 PM

I agree, the mustache is creepy, as is this guy altogether.

S on November 25, 2008 at 12:43 AM

Janet Reno now makes more sense as a lunatic after hearing this former associate of hers.

S on November 25, 2008 at 12:44 AM

There is much good in the Geneva Convention. First of all, it says that all combatants captured on the battlefield must be repatriated (sent back to their native countries) either after the termination of hostilities or upon parole, but are allowed to be interned until the cessation of hostilities. Secondly, those combatants must NOT be subject to civilian courts unless the capturing powers own soldiers are subject to same courts; if our soldiers are subject to courts martial for various offenses, the interned prisoners are subject to same.

I’d say that it’s time to send the Uighars home to China, and to subject all prisoners to the same rules to which our own soldiers are subject. In other words, if someone tosses a bag of poo on one of our soldiers, lets treat him as if our soldier had tossed a bag of poo on him.

unclesmrgol on November 25, 2008 at 1:13 AM

The Geneva Convention is only of use if both combatants abide by it. Terrorists, by definition, abide by no conventions. They are terrorists because they are thugs, and thugs behave as such. Affording Geneva niceties upon terrorists will only serve as a sign of weakness, not nobility.

OldEnglish on November 25, 2008 at 2:19 AM

Ed-“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.”

I read that differently. I think he is saying they cannot be prisoners of war (and thus entitled to Geneva protections) because they are common criminals and there is no ‘war’. The Gorelick doctarine of treating terrorism as a civil police problem. Foreign terrorists are entitled to the civil protections afforded US citizens for, say, robbing a bank, or shoplifting.

percysunshine on November 25, 2008 at 6:32 AM

What happened to Paula Zahn? I forgot how hot she was.

angryed on November 25, 2008 at 7:46 AM

Bishop on November 24, 2008 at 9:38 PM

ha ha I thought this guy looked familiar.

kanda on November 25, 2008 at 7:53 AM

I’m thinking I’ll pretend I’m high for the next four years, and then all of this will be highly entertaining. If I were to focus on the reality of an Obama administration and the “quality” of his appointee’s, I’d be terrified.

anniekc on November 25, 2008 at 7:54 AM

Obama’s going to have so many reversal’s, the press won’t be able to “un-erase” quick enough.

right2bright on November 25, 2008 at 8:29 AM

P.S. Compare the sleazy way the Clintons begged for money for that library with the way GWB is leaving office. Any mention of his library or further plans? NO!

highhopes on November 24, 2008 at 9:10 PM

Lets not forget how the Clintoons STOLE furniture from the WH when they KNEW it wasn’t theirs to take!

Of all the morally banckrupt things the Clintoons did while in office stealing furniture from the WH on their way out was one of the most disgusting and telling things about the Clintoon presidency and its legacy of ineptness and immorality!

Liberty or Death on November 25, 2008 at 9:31 AM

we would want them to be treated in an appropriate way consistent with the Geneva Convention.

I believe the Geneva Convention says you can take them out and shoot them. I am all for that.

Buford on November 25, 2008 at 10:07 AM

Let’s see how long it is before he “Changes” his tune….

BiasedGirl on November 25, 2008 at 11:13 AM

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.

Hope!

Bruno Strozek on November 25, 2008 at 11:26 AM