Suddenly reality hits home for hundreds of basement-dwelling DailyKos posters...

That's an incredibly badly written article-- an amazingly badly written article.

It appears to be basing its conclusion on this exchange:

Graham said that under the law of war, the government can say, "If you're part of the enemy force, there is no requirement to let them go back to the war and kill our troops. Do you agree that makes sense?"

Kagan replied, "I think it makes sense, and I think you're correct that that is the law."

"So America needs to get ready for this proposition that some people are going to be detained as enemy combatants, not criminals," Graham concluded.

lexnaturalis: Suddenly reality hits home for hundreds of basement-dwelling DailyKos posters...

Suddenly people assume that Obama's closing the book on this and will never revisit the issue even though he's said very little on it and it's not even his first 30 days in office.

"ZOMG Obama didn't give us healthcare!! He's a liar"

Graham said that under the law of war, the government can say, "If you're part of the enemy force, there is no requirement to let them go back to the war and kill our troops. Do you agree that makes sense?"

Is that a real question? WTF? A REQUIREMENT to let them go back to the war and kill our troops?

That's douchey even for Graham.

Hey, Lindsey, ask her if she stopped beating her girlfriend yet (oooh, that's a double whammy - you can remind everyone that she's gay!)

PC LOAD LETTER: lexnaturalis: Suddenly reality hits home for hundreds of basement-dwelling DailyKos posters...

Suddenly people assume that Obama's closing the book on this and will never revisit the issue even though he's said very little on it and it's not even his first 30 days in office.

"ZOMG Obama didn't give us healthcare!! He's a liar"

Seriously-people should be used to the fact that government moves slow as all shiat.

Obdicut: That's an incredibly badly written article-- an amazingly badly written article.

It appears to be basing its conclusion on this exchange...

I think if you read the entire article again, the conclusion is not as unsound as you state. It's fairly clear what the implications of the entire exchange were, and it certainly seems as though the solicitor nominee agreed that terror suspects picked up abroad can be held as enemy combatants, and enemy combatants can be held without trial.

lexnaturalis: Suddenly reality hits home for hundreds of basement-dwelling DailyKos posters...

You just keep on hoping to find something, eh? I think I understand where you're coming from with that though... I'd be a little upset too if the guy I supported got completely trounced by his opponent.

Or was it Palin? Was she the one you really wanted?

Artmageddon: Seriously-people should be used to the fact that government moves slow as all shiat.

Unfortunately, in this era of 24-hour news networks and instantaneous information via the internet, I think people have developed this belief that the government should move at the ever-increasing speed of life.

Shostie: Artmageddon: Seriously-people should be used to the fact that government moves slow as all shiat.

Unfortunately, in this era of 24-hour news networks and instantaneous information via the internet, I think people have developed this belief that the government should move at the ever-increasing speed of life.

Yeah, that doesn't surprise me. People are all too itchy.. "Where's that 'change' you promised us, huh? How about now? How about now??"

Shostie: Artmageddon: Seriously-people should be used to the fact that government moves slow as all shiat.

Unfortunately, in this era of 24-hour news networks and instantaneous information via the internet, I think people have developed this belief that the government should move at the ever-increasing speed of life.

And why not? That's what they want us to do.

If they are to be treated as prisoners of war. which means humane conditions, no torture, and access to relief agencies like the red cross, then that's at least a step in the right direction.

Still say that "war on terror" is dumb. the ICJ can try them as international criminals. Try them properly. if found guilty, then punish them.

lajimi: And why not? That's what they want us to do.

The mechanisms of the government weren't set up to move this fast. Or at least, not this fast all the time.

Can someone let me know when it is an appropriate time to comment on this news story? I don't want to be perceived as jumping the gun.

veedeevadeevoodee:

HOGAN!

Nabb1: I think if you read the entire article again, the conclusion is not as unsound as you state. It's fairly clear what the implications of the entire exchange were, and it certainly seems as though the solicitor nominee agreed that terror suspects picked up abroad can be held as enemy combatants, and enemy combatants can be held without trial.

I'm sorry, I don't see that. I'm fully willing to believe that it's true, especially after the "states' secrets" deal, but this article does nothing to promote that. It takes quotes with little or no context, and comes to conclusions without showing any reason for those conclusions.

For example, you're using the made-up phrase "enemy combatants" to describe her position. She did not use that phrase (in the linked article), and there seems to me no reason, from the article, to believe that she thinks that category exists. Can you find something in this article indicating she believes that prisoners can have a status other than POW or criminal civilian?

i don't think it would be too difficult to have that argument thrown out in court when the government could not produce a declaration of war.

Obdicut: Can you find something in this article indicating she believes that prisoners can have a status other than POW or criminal civilian?

{sigh} That's not what I said. Lindsey Graham used the phrase. Just forget it, Obtusicut. I'm not going to play the hair-splitting game with you. It was abundantly clear from that article what the implications were.

burndtdan: i don't think it would be too difficult to have that argument thrown out in court when the government could not produce a declaration of war.

Oh, so you want to go THERE? I'm surprised that question doesn't come up more often actually.

burndtdan: i don't think it would be too difficult to have that argument thrown out in court when the government could not produce a declaration of war.

Make your case, then, counselor. I'm sure POWs from the Korean and Vietnam conflicts would be interested.

Nabb1: {sigh} That's not what I said. Lindsey Graham used the phrase. Just forget it, Obtusicut. I'm not going to play the hair-splitting game with you. It was abundantly clear from that article what the implications were.

That was kind of my point. Graham used it, not her, and there is no quote from her after his statement. What she agreed to was:

"If you're part of the enemy force, there is no requirement to let them go back to the war and kill our troops. Do you agree that makes sense?"

It is quite clear what the implication of the article is, as I said, and I am quite willing to believe that implication is true, as I said. All I am saying now is that this article makes a complete hash out of trying to prove its implication. It would need to show, for example, what she believes needs to be done to prove that someone is part of the "enemy force" before you detain them, if anything.

I am sorry that me saying that the article has a clear implication but completely farks up the delivery leads you to wanting to insult me and leave; I really don't understand why.

burndtdan: i don't think it would be too difficult to have that argument thrown out in court when the government could not produce a declaration of war.

The problem with that is that there's nothing that actually looks like a declaration of war. It has been successfully argued by the government that funding a war is a declaration of war, even if there has never been a resolution declaring war in congress. There's nothing in the constitution, for example, about what constitutes a declaration of war.

/Please anyone correct me if I'm wrong about this.

Obdicut: I am sorry that me saying that the article has a clear implication but completely farks up the delivery leads you to wanting to insult me and leave; I really don't understand why.

Oh, just drop the wounded puppy act. After what you have said to me in the past, I am not going to buy into that. (And if you don't recall what line you crossed with me, then that even says more to me than if you did.) If you want to bicker over semantics go ahead, but it is quite clear that the nominee thought that terrorist suspects abroad are considered, from a legal standpoint, to not fall within the US criminal system, which in turn means they can be held without trial.

Obdicut: burndtdan: i don't think it would be too difficult to have that argument thrown out in court when the government could not produce a declaration of war.

The problem with that is that there's nothing that actually looks like a declaration of war. It has been successfully argued by the government that funding a war is a declaration of war, even if there has never been a resolution declaring war in congress. There's nothing in the constitution, for example, about what constitutes a declaration of war.

/Please anyone correct me if I'm wrong about this.

can't they just use the one from the Franco-Prussian War ? Just change "Otto von Bismarck" to read "George Bush"

Nabb1: Oh, just drop the wounded puppy act. After what you have said to me in the past, I am not going to buy into that. (And if you don't recall what line you crossed with me, then that even says more to me than if you did.)

I do, I'd have figured you'd have gotten over it. If you want to carry a grudge and act weird towards me going forwards, I can only say that it's not in your best interests to do so.

Nabb1: If you want to bicker over semantics go ahead, but it is quite clear that the nominee thought that terrorist suspects abroad are considered, from a legal standpoint, to not fall within the US criminal system, which in turn means they can be held without trial.

I ask again, with emphasis:

Can you find something in this article indicating she believes that prisoners can have a status other than POW or criminal civilian?

Obdicut: I do, I'd have figured you'd have gotten over it. If you want to carry a grudge and act weird towards me going forwards, I can only say that it's not in your best interests to do so.

Oh, really? And why is that?

Nabb1: Oh, really? And why is that?

Basically, because it'll make you look kind of weird and creepy. You're getting personal very quickly, which will seem weird to someone who doesn't know that you're carrying a grudge against me because you feel I attacked you unfairly. It's also, I believe, making you act reflexively against nearly everything I post, which is not the best way to be making arguments.

Obdicut: I can only say that it's not in your best interests to do so.

I'd say that sounds vaguely threatening.. Isn't that against the FARQ?

Alacritous: I'd say that sounds vaguely threatening.. Isn't that against the FARQ?

Please see my post above. Internet tough guy, I am not. Nor real-life, for that matter.

Nabb1: burndtdan: i don't think it would be too difficult to have that argument thrown out in court when the government could not produce a declaration of war.

Make your case, then, counselor. I'm sure POWs from the Korean and Vietnam conflicts would be interested.

i'm not a scholar on the issue, but i would imagine there was SOME sort of document that could be argued to be some form of declaration of war there.

for example, in iraq there isn't really a declaration of war, but there was the congressional permission to use force. it's legally shaky, in my opinion, but it's there.

there is literally nothing to legally back up the premise that we are at war with al qaeda. we are no more legally at war with al qaeda than we are legally at war with drugs or poverty, and we don't get to deal with drug cartels based on the law of war. a public relations narrative does not a legal foundation make.

Obdicut: Can you find something in this article indicating she believes that prisoners can have a status other than POW or criminal civilian?

Fine. Can you find something in the article indicating that (a) the term "POW" was used, (b) whether she took issue with Sen. Graham's use of the phrase "enemy combatant" (and if she did, shame on the paper for not pointing that out), and (c) whether or not the distinction between "POW" and "enemy combatant" has any bearing on the discussion of whether the prisoner in question can be held without trial until the end of hostilities or must be handled through the criminal system?

Mordant: Obdicut: burndtdan: i don't think it would be too difficult to have that argument thrown out in court when the government could not produce a declaration of war.

The problem with that is that there's nothing that actually looks like a declaration of war. It has been successfully argued by the government that funding a war is a declaration of war, even if there has never been a resolution declaring war in congress. There's nothing in the constitution, for example, about what constitutes a declaration of war.

/Please anyone correct me if I'm wrong about this.

can't they just use the one from the Franco-Prussian War ? Just change "Otto von Bismarck" to read "George Bush"

Congress should just make and pass a bunch form-declarations and pre-approved spending bills and put them in the top draw of the Oval Office desk. The result would be the same, and bombs could falling a day or two sooner.

Obdicut: Alacritous: I'd say that sounds vaguely threatening.. Isn't that against the FARQ?

Please see my post above. Internet tough guy, I am not. Nor real-life, for that matter.


You posted yours while I was writing mine. I see that now.

burndtdan: Nabb1: burndtdan: i don't think it would be too difficult to have that argument thrown out in court when the government could not produce a declaration of war.

Make your case, then, counselor. I'm sure POWs from the Korean and Vietnam conflicts would be interested.

i'm not a scholar on the issue, but i would imagine there was SOME sort of document that could be argued to be some form of declaration of war there.

for example, in iraq there isn't really a declaration of war, but there was the congressional permission to use force. it's legally shaky, in my opinion, but it's there.

there is literally nothing to legally back up the premise that we are at war with al qaeda. we are no more legally at war with al qaeda than we are legally at war with drugs or poverty, and we don't get to deal with drug cartels based on the law of war. a public relations narrative does not a legal foundation make.

Well, I don't think a prisoner's legal status is dependent on a formal declaration of war. I think it gets really fuzzy with the "war on terror," but there is no denying that there are very real hostilities going on out there, and in my mind, treating them under the law of war as opposed to criminal law is appropriate.

Nabb1: Well, I don't think a prisoner's legal status is dependent on a formal declaration of war. I think it gets really fuzzy with the "war on terror," but there is no denying that there are very real hostilities going on out there, and in my mind, treating them under the law of war as opposed to criminal law is appropriate.

it might very well be appropriate. but if it's appropriate, the thing to do is to make it official.

Nabb1: Fine. Can you find something in the article indicating that (a) the term "POW" was used, (b) whether she took issue with Sen. Graham's use of the phrase "enemy combatant" (and if she did, shame on the paper for not pointing that out), and (c) whether or not the distinction between "POW" and "enemy combatant" has any bearing on the discussion of whether the prisoner in question can be held without trial until the end of hostilities or must be handled through the criminal system?

A) No.

B) No.

C) There is no such thing as the category "enemy combatant", so I'm not sure what you mean by a distinction between it and anything else. The question would be whether she believes that category exists, and, if so, what its attributes are. It is a category that was created to give fewer rights than POW status, so to me it's rather obvious the distinction is important.

Hmmmmmmmm...campaign rhetoric does not equal governing policy? Whoulda thunk it?!?

Obdicut: Nabb1: Fine. Can you find something in the article indicating that (a) the term "POW" was used, (b) whether she took issue with Sen. Graham's use of the phrase "enemy combatant" (and if she did, shame on the paper for not pointing that out), and (c) whether or not the distinction between "POW" and "enemy combatant" has any bearing on the discussion of whether the prisoner in question can be held without trial until the end of hostilities or must be handled through the criminal system?

A) No.

B) No.

C) There is no such thing as the category "enemy combatant", so I'm not sure what you mean by a distinction between it and anything else. The question would be whether she believes that category exists, and, if so, what its attributes are. It is a category that was created to give fewer rights than POW status, so to me it's rather obvious the distinction is important.

Well, I disagree that the distinction has any relevance to the issue of whether they are held to the end of hostilities and whether they are handed over to the criminal court system. Now, had the issue of any distinction between "enemy combatants" and "POWs" come up, I would agree, but that wasn't the issue raised.

SVX: Hmmmmmmmm...campaign rhetoric does not equal governing policy? Whoulda thunk it?!?

Hmmm, making up new categories, ignoring treaties and building a prison in Cuba to avoid the law might cause years of fkn trouble?

Whoulda thunk it?

Nabb1: Well, I disagree that the distinction has any relevance to the issue of whether they are held to the end of hostilities and whether they are handed over to the criminal court system. Now, had the issue of any distinction between "enemy combatants" and "POWs" come up, I would agree, but that wasn't the issue raised.

I'd say that Graham was trying to implicitly and sneakily say that POW and enemy combatant were pretty much the same thing, when it's obvious they aren't. I'd say that's a clear implication of the article.

Obdicut: Nabb1: Well, I disagree that the distinction has any relevance to the issue of whether they are held to the end of hostilities and whether they are handed over to the criminal court system. Now, had the issue of any distinction between "enemy combatants" and "POWs" come up, I would agree, but that wasn't the issue raised.

I'd say that Graham was trying to implicitly and sneakily say that POW and enemy combatant were pretty much the same thing, when it's obvious they aren't. I'd say that's a clear implication of the article.

I'd say that's your own inference from the article. And even if he was, it's really of no relevance to the legal opinion she gave vis a vis the specific issue at hand re: law of war versus criminal law for terror suspects.

Obdicut: I'd say that Graham was trying to implicitly and sneakily say that POW and enemy combatant were pretty much the same thing, when it's obvious they aren't.

what he was trying to do was present a question on a topic he knows is controversial with the left where, given his premise, it seems to make sense, but where his premise is questionable (at best).

trying to make a discrediting sound byte by leading the witness, as it were.

Nabb1: I'd say that's your own inference from the article. And even if he was, it's really of no relevance to the legal opinion she gave vis a vis the specific issue at hand re: law of war versus criminal law for terror suspects.

Yes, that is my own inference. That's what I said.

The specific issue at hand, however, is completely muddied by the made-up "enemy combatant" category. The "law of war" should mean the captured person is a POW, with all the rights attendant to a POW (including, I believe-- again, anyone correct me if I'm wrong) the right to challenge their status. It definitely includes rights to a lot of contact that 'enemy combatants' have been prohibited from. If she is giving the opinion that anyone we capture like that has to be treated like a POW, that is a very large change from what Bush did.

My point, my whole point, is that that is the key question here, and that is not at all revealed by the article, which is badly written. As I've said, I'm fully willing to believe, after the States Secrets' bullshiat, that that is her position. All that I'm saying is that this article seems almost intentionally unclear.

burndtdan: trying to make a discrediting sound byte by leading the witness, as it were.

Maybe. It is also possible she believes this. Any number of scenarios are possible:

A) She believes in the enemy combatant dipshiattery, and Obama supports her on that.

B) She believes in the enemy combatant dipshiattery, but Obama does not, and she will not be allowed to pursue it.

C) She does not believe in the enemy combatant dipshiattery, but does believe those people captured are POWs.

D) She believes something entirely different that somehow fits the facts as well.

In other news, my favorite words appear to be dipshiattery and weird.

Obdicut: Maybe. It is also possible she believes this.

regardless of her beliefs, that's what graham was trying to do.

Obdicut: Nabb1: I'd say that's your own inference from the article. And even if he was, it's really of no relevance to the legal opinion she gave vis a vis the specific issue at hand re: law of war versus criminal law for terror suspects.

Yes, that is my own inference. That's what I said.

The specific issue at hand, however, is completely muddied by the made-up "enemy combatant" category. The "law of war" should mean the captured person is a POW, with all the rights attendant to a POW (including, I believe-- again, anyone correct me if I'm wrong) the right to challenge their status. It definitely includes rights to a lot of contact that 'enemy combatants' have been prohibited from. If she is giving the opinion that anyone we capture like that has to be treated like a POW, that is a very large change from what Bush did.

My point, my whole point, is that that is the key question here, and that is not at all revealed by the article, which is badly written. As I've said, I'm fully willing to believe, after the States Secrets' bullshiat, that that is her position. All that I'm saying is that this article seems almost intentionally unclear.

I think you are taking the entire mile from the inch the article gave, i.e. presupposing positions they did not articulate and an argument that they did not have. They may yet explore that, and it's probably something they ought to flesh out given the thin line the previous administration tried to walk, but again, for the narrow legal question posed, the status of "POW" or "enemy combatant" is of no moment. And if they didn't actually engage in the discussion of that distinction, then the article is not deficient for not discussing something that did not take place. Personally, I think the "law of war" implies POW status, but since the article does not indicate whether they intended that, I'm not going to presume any position on the part of either of them.

Lionel Mandrake: SVX: Hmmmmmmmm...campaign rhetoric does not equal governing policy? Whoulda thunk it?!?

Hmmm, making up new categories, ignoring treaties and building a prison in Cuba to avoid the law might cause years of fkn trouble?

Whoulda thunk it?

What treaties are we ignoring? The Geneva Convention? That refers to the treatment of bonafide prisoners of war. These "people" aren't prisoners of war. They're bandits. Up until now, if a nation state captured a "partisan" making aggressive war against its troops, they shot them. Or hung them. There are no Geneva Conventions for partisan activities. And these aren't even partisans, they're outright bandits. President Obama and his team are starting to realize this. They're starting to realize that there are exceptions to the rule, and that there are some people who are just so rotten, that the rules aren't going to apply to them.

This is why you have proper oversight into these kinds of extrajudicial activities. Obama will undoubtedly create mechanisms which will ensure that there is no outright torture, and that the excesses of the Bush administration are adjudicated. But if you are expecting him to repudiate entirely the mechanisms in place to deal with the "worst of the worst", then you are sadly mistaken.

Obdicut: There is no such thing as the category "enemy combatant"

Obdicut: the made-up "enemy combatant" category

I don't want to horn in on your debate, but felt compelled to point out one thing before you go on: The term "enemy combatant" has been around since WWII. The category is for non-uniformed or civilian combatants such as spies, insurgents, and rebels. It's the "non-uniformed/civilian" part that the Bush administration focused on & broadened, thereby denying rights to every "War on Terror" detainee everywhere (Guantanamo, the floating prisons, even US citizens).

The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals

Link (new window)