Solicitor general nominee says 'enemy combatants' can be held without trial

[Freddie Stubbs]

Elena Kagan tells a senator she agrees with Attorney General Holder that the U.S. is at war and therefore may detain suspected terrorists indefinitely.
By David G. Savage
February 11, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- Harvard Law Dean Elena Kagan, President Obama's choice to represent his administration before the Supreme Court, told a key Republican senator Tuesday that she believed the government could hold suspected terrorists without trial as war prisoners.

She echoed comments by Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. during his confirmation hearing last month. Both agreed that the United States was at war with Al Qaeda and suggested the law of war allows the government to capture and hold alleged terrorists without charges.

more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-solicitor-general11-2009feb11,0,7158432.story

[atreides1]

1. Then Declare War and Make it Legal

This is more Bush BS, only now it will be Obama BS.

This woman is a Harvard Law Dean, in what twisted dimension have these idots been living?

And please don't come back with "they have to agree to get confirmed", that only tells me that they have little or no integrity.

Change my ass.

[Freddie Stubbs]

3. Perhaps she actually believes this is legal

Does there need to be a declaration of war for there to be the conditions of war? If we had captured a Japanese pilot after the Pearl harbor attack but before Congress declared war, would that person not be a prisoner of war, since we were not legally at war with Japan yet?

[WeDidIt]

2. They can

Enemy combatants were held throughout World War II with no trial whatsoever.

They are referred to as "Prisoners of War" and are accorded the rights and privelages guaranteed under the Geneva Conventions.

[biopowertoday]

5. This is not WWII and the held people are NOT on our shores and

they are outside our judicial system of rights. that was the whole idea of putting them off US soil.

[MadHound]

6. Excuse me, but that's part of the problem

POW's have a distinct set of legal rights, both nationally and internationally. This new classification of "enemy combatant" strips people of those rights and throws them into a netherworld where they can be beaten, tortured, and held indefinitely all without legal recourse.

Whoops, sorry, this reply was meant for post number 2.

[biopowertoday]

7. yes, it is a major part of the problem (the reclassification).

[Still Sensible]

4. The issue is whether or not the prisoners must be treated

as prisoners of war with all the corresponding protections or not. That is what the whole torture issue really comes down to and that is why the Bush administration DECIDED THEY WERE NOT POWs... otherwise the Geneva Conventions would unquestionably legally apply to the detainees.

Dean Kagen and Attorney General Holder correctly assert that these people should have, in fact, been designated prisoners of war... In which case they would have been inarguably legally protected from torture while in custody.

If and when anybody in the Bush administration faces charges relative to this, their entire defense will be based on the way they specifically designated these people in such a way as to make the Geneva Conventions not applicable. This will be the foundation of their entire house of cards defense.

[Danger Mouse]

8. They need to have full protections under the Geneva Convention.

[truebrit71]

9. Um, no and stuff....

..what is it about Geneva Conventions she doesn't understand...