Unlawful Combatants Are Not POWs (Eric Holder CNN interview in 2002)

nationalreview.com ^ | November 22, 2008 | Cliff May

[Free ThinkerNY]

That was the view of Eric Holder, Oama's choice for Attorney General, in a CNN interview in 2002 (as recalled by the WSJ today):

One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people.

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.

[DieHard the Hunter]

> 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 categorically aren’t.

More to the point, tho’ — is America actually a signator to that part of the Geneva Convention? I don’t think you are.

[BraveMan]

They have RFID tags the size of a grain of rice. Plant them & send them on their way . . .

[Candor7]

These Unlawful Combatants are not soldiers of any nation. As such they are not aligned with the protocols of allegiance to any national flag or its protections, such as a national army has if its nation is a signatory to the Geneva Convention. The Bush administration treated these unlawful combatants outside the Geneve convention, and the United States had every right to do that according to international law, and the Geneva Convention.

The US could have executed every one of them without any trial whatsoever.

These unlawful combatants have a similar status to pirates.

I doubt Holder now has that same view, it is not politically correct at this time. If he has changed to the politically correct view now, he is allowed to do that under the fascist rules of political correctness. It all depends on what the definition of IS is.

[calenel]

"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"

Ding, ding, ding, ding! Give the man a prize! He gets it! I wish more people did. It may be the only thing he has right. Unlawful Combatants are NOT entitled to Geneva Convention protections as they engage in exactly the types of behavior the GC was created to protect us from. They may be summarily executed on the battlefield, just as being in the wrong uniform in WWII would have gotten them shot.

[xjcsa]

They have RFID tags the size of a grain of rice. Plant them & send them on their way . . .

That'll work great, as long as you can get an RFID scanner within an inch or so of the tag. Works for identification, but not for tracking.

[Gay State Conservative]

I'll wager the clothes on my back that his attitude has “evolved” since then...become more “nuanced”.Translation...he now believes that every 9th Century knuckledragging raghead that learns how to make a roadside bomb is entitled to a court date...represented by lawyers paid for by US taxpayers...just like your basic bank fraud defendant.

[Young Werther]

The Geneva Convention rules require that as a prisoner you need only provide your name, rank and serial number. A non-combatant might have a name but if there is no rank or serial number you are not a combatant but can be designated a

SPY!

Spies can be executed on the spot on the battle field or sent to a special compound where they may be interrogated. At the point where they no longer are needed for information they may choose

A. firing Squad

B. Hanging

C. All of the above!

[driftdiver]

I say inject them with an RFID tag the size of a pig and then let them go.

[Volunteer]

"They may be summarily executed on the battlefield..."

It has been many years ago, but I remember being taught at Knox and at Benning that a person shooting at you, without a uniform, was to be shot. Am I remembering correctly?

[calenel]

"It has been many years ago, but I remember being taught at Knox and at Benning that a person shooting at you, without a uniform, was to be shot. Am I remembering correctly?"

I'd shoot the ones in uniforms, too, until they surrendered. The ones without uniforms are illegal combatants, and yes, sir, your memory is correct - they are subject to summary battlefield justice.

[calenel]

"I say inject them with an RFID tag the size of a pig and then let them go."

How about surgically implanting a LoJack and a couple of pounds of C4 with a detonator and then let them go? I mean, after all, they do like to blow up, right? Gets them to Paradise faster, right? No violation of the Geneva Conventions there.

Gen. John Pershing allegedly effectively snuffed out Muslim terrorism in the Philippines during the early 20th century by burying the ones he killed with pigs. I suppose that wouldn't fly today.

[BraveMan]

Granted, you wouldn't have real-time data. Typical ten meter read distances would make urban tracking possible though, especially in a hot zone . . .

A few rice meals before they leave camp, and a few tags are ‘bound’ to remain; others ‘dropped’ along the way would provide an interesting trail to follow.

[rfreedom4u]

I’ve been saying this for years. What we should do is stop making it known that they have been captured. If they “disappear” then who would know?

[calenel]

"I’ve been saying this for years."

Me, too! We're probably on some government lists for it, LOL

"If they “disappear” then who would know?"

It's hard to be a martyr when nobody knows you're dead. I'm hoping this is what happened to Bin Laden. Two to the head and an unmarked pork-filled grave.