Posted on 11/23/2008 2:54:09 PM PST by Winged Hussar
The Democrats have bleated for years about the detention of illegal combatants at Guantanamo, while the Left and the "international community" have demanded that captured terrorists be treated as prisoners of war. We read in the November 22-23 Wall Street Journal (page A13) that Barack Obama's selected Attorney General, Eric Holder, agrees with us that terrorists are not uniformed combatants who are entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention. Per an interview on CNN in January 2002,
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at israpundit.com ...
>>Obama’s selected Attorney General, Eric Holder, agrees with us that terrorists are not uniformed combatants <<
It is not so important how they are classified - what we need to avoid is seeking to find a scenario to deprive any prisoner of human rights and those rights they are intended to have under the constitution as envisioned by the founders plus treaties we depend on to protect the rights of Americans who are captured.
Holder is pretty bad on the 2nd. First, some background.
Back during the first two years of Clinton, the dem congress passed the “Gun Free School Zones” Act (later found to be unconstitutional by SCOTUS). This act made it a felony (federal) to posses any firearmy within 1/4 mile of school property.
Holder was asked to render an official Justice Department opinion on whether this act also applied to home schools. Holder opined that it did. This opinion, had it been enforced, would have rendered it impossible to own a gun in the US. For example, you don’t know who homeschools, if anyone does, in your neighborhood. You have no way of finding out. IOW, keep a gun at home and run the risk of being prosecuted if anyone within 1/4 mile of your house home schools.
BTW, under this act, if you drove by a school with a gun in your car, you were a felon. Want to go hunting? Now find out all the schools along your route. Plot a path staying at least 1/4 mile from each and if you stray within 1/4 mile of someone who home schools, you’re a felon.
That’s an example of Eric Holder and gun rights.
Obama and Democrats lied to win the election.
Why is anybody surprised?
I’d like an apology to the Bush Administration. Like right this BLEEPin’ moment.
Nice summary. And I believe he wrote an amicus opinion in DC v. Heller supporting the position of the city.
I think we can look forwaqrd to more years of a US attorney general who will seek to reward (or ignore) foreign lawbreakers, while attempting to circumscribe the rights of lawabiding Americans.
He’s a political hack and we’ll fight him every inch of the way.
I am NOT defending Holder. I would still suggest Holder was following Justice Department guidelines and wishes.
No matter what he did before. the real test now will be what he does in the future. No, I’m not giving him a break. I AM, however, demanding he be held accountable now that he will be in charge and responsible for decisions coming from the Justice Department. Janet Reno failed, John Ashcroft passed, the rest are iffy.
“I am NOT defending Holder. I would still suggest Holder was following Justice Department guidelines and wishes.”
Don’t you think the Constitution is more important that Justice Department guidlines and wishes?
I’ve been saying for a long time that should have started doing that very early on, before we were even in Iraq, with some of the guys captured in Afghanistan.
Notice that the Indian Navy didn’t mess around with the pirates. I’m sure they didn’t have six lawyers writing their Rules of Engagement, and worrying about the niceties of habeas corpus was not high on their priority list as they were feeding the pirate corpuses to the fishes.
Yes, I do but the Democrats don’t. They live in a world of make believe. Just as sadly, John Ashcroft and President Bush must not have had a problem with the pardons or prior actions since nobody was held accountable in 2000 or 2001.
How does one hold someone responsible for a Presidential pardon? That power of the President to pardon is unrestricted and not subject to review.
I suggest we use sarin or VX gas on them - the kind that causes convulsions so severe it snaps bones likes twigs. Now that’s my idea of a dance party - 4 or 5 hundred thousand militant Islamist sand Nazis doing that horizontal “break” dance all in one shot. I bet it would feel like a stampede.
Any idea of Holder’s views, for example, on the 2nd Amendment?Henry Hyde shares his views.
This is the problem. There are few standards for a Presidential pardon.
As far as I know there is NO recourse to a Presidential pardon. Clinton’s pardons were a slam dunk but the media refuses to address what he did. President Bush has refused to issue very many pardons, even when he should.
BUMP FOR LATER
You do understand that Holder is just talking about American gun owners and NRA members, right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.