Senator Sessions Flips. Again. Enemy Combatants Become Prisoners of War

If you are a regular reader, you know how much I love to write about Senator Sessions and the serial stupidity of the GOP. I believe that Mr. Sessions exemplifies that quality.

As the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, today Sessions inserted both feet into his mouth when he responded to a discussion about Fort Hood, terrorism, and the upcoming trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammad by saying:

"The enemy, who could of been obliterated on the battlefield on one day, but was captured instead does not then become a common American criminal. They are first a prisoner of war, once they're captured. The laws of war say, as did Lincoln and Grant, that the prisoners will not be released when the war - until the war ends. How absurb is it to say that we will release people who plan to attack us again?"

This is a really interesting comment. The "war on terror," according to the terms set forth by just about everyone, has no real ending. When do we say it is over? If prisoners then are prisoners of this war on terror, when can they expect to be released? They can't. That is exactly why Bush and company created the military tribunal system, Guantanamo Bay, and the designation "enemy combatant." The use of the term "prisoner of war" has very specific legal obligations to the country holding that individual.  Why do you think that Bush and company were very, very careful to never, ever refer to any of the "enemy combatants" or other residents at Guantanamo Bay as "prisoners of war?" They and the mainstream media refer endlessly to the "war on terror." But they had to create a new lexicon to wage it. Enhanced interogation. Enemy combatant.

Senator Sessions just as the rest of the Republicans do, chooses which terminology fits the argument, or which argument fits the results he wants to reach.

h/t Crooks and Liars

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Image from irvinehousingblog dot com

Obama's Long War Against Cheneyism?

Obama's Long War Against Cheneyism? is worth the read and presents a perspective that although is one that I'm not sure I agree with in its entirety, is one that I hope is true, that I want to be true. Andrew Sullivan has taken Obama's recent decisions - many of which I have slammed in these pages, as have many progressives - and offers a view of Obama that, "...reveals a cunning we miss at our peril."

In discussing Cheney and his supporters, and their ownership of the 'war on terror,' Sullivans says:

"They have no shame and no ethical boundaries. And so the only truly profound way to defeat them and what they represent is to show that a humane ruthlessness is still possible in the fight against al Qaeda - which remains a threat rather than a phantom."

He analyzes why he believes Obama retained Gates, co-opted Huntsman, and chose McChrystal and suggests that by keeping the best of Bush's choices,

"...Obama is coopting the best of the Bush legacy, while separating it from the callow cynicism of the Cheney-Rove-Kristol axis."

"Cheney is taking the torture bait from Obama even as Obama refuses brilliantly to take the terror bait from Cheney. Obama is resisting the red-blue reductionism of the past while forging a new and powerful center. And the more Cheney and Kristol and Limbaugh posture as the future of the GOP, the worse they will do and the more likely it is that more sane and sensible conservatives will eventually fight back."

It has been clear for some time that although Obama is clearly making decisions that appear to break campaign promises, some of which appear to go even further than those of Bush particularly in the area of the 'war on terror,' he is too smart not to have a plan. President Bush was a puppet, at least in the early days. Despite his Ivy League degree, he did not have the intellectual capacity nor the critical thinking skills to make informed decisions. He was the first to say that he made decisions based on what he felt in his heart.

Is this thesis presented by Sullivan the answer then to the choices Obama is making? I don't know. Sullivan certainly has the credentials to support this theory and it is a very comforting one. Check it out and let me know what you think.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.

k