The government's indefinite-detention policy -- stripped of it's spin -- is literally insane, and based on circular reasoning. Stripped of p.r., this is the actual policy:
- If you are an enemy combatant or a threat to national security, we will detain you indefinitely until the war is over
- It is a perpetual war, which will never be over
- Neither you or your lawyers have a right to see the evidence against you, nor to face your accusers
- But trust us, we know you are an enemy combatant and a threat to national security
- We may torture you (and try to cover up the fact that you were tortured), because you are an enemy combatant, and so basic rights of a prisoner guaranteed by the Geneva Convention don't apply to you
- Since you admitted that you're a bad guy (while trying to tell us whatever you think we want to hear to make the torture stop), it proves that we should hold you in indefinite detention
See how that works?
The government also wants to
And -- given that political dissent is now considered terrorism, and protesters considered low-level terrorists -- does that mean that dissent or protest makes one a "combatant"?
Karl Denninger also points out that Holder's letter only referred to "to using a weaponized drone", and didn't say anything about other types of assassination:
Still can't be bothered to make a clear statement can you?
So in your opinion, Mr. Holder, it's perfectly ok if the President uses an M-16, a 9mm, a bomb constructed out of C-4, or burns the building you're in to the ground?
Therefore, Holder's letter raises more questions than it answers.
Update: One of the nation's top constitutional and military law experts, and a liberal -- Professor Jonathan Turley -- just weighed in on this issue:
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
1
1
