Human Events reminds that Attorney General Eric Holder, who wants to afford the Christmas Day jetliner bomber all the rights and privileges of an American citizen in our civilian courts, once thought such terrorists -- enemy combatants -- should enjoy no such consideration. Mr. "Holder puts political convenience above common sense, military tradition and concern for the safety of American citizens," the newspaper notes in an editorial. So much for Eric Holder sticking to his principles.And from the Human Events editorial they reference:
The American people overwhelmingly think that the Christmas Day airplane bomber, not to mention 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed, should be treated as enemy combatants, not common criminals or Prisoners of War afforded protections under the Geneva Conventions.B-u-u-u-u-u-t when you go find the entire quotation, it turns out that both Human Events and by extension Scaife's brain trust have it, well, wrong. And they should have known this because this smear was debunked almost a year ago at mediamatters.
Interestingly enough, Attorney General Eric Holder agrees -- at least, he did back in 2002. Here’s what he said when discussing the 9/11 terrorists: “One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located.…It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves,…that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohamed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not.”
You'd think they'd find some new smear to use. Here's the reality. Holder was being interviewed by Paula Zahn. And she asks:So she's looking for Holder to map out both sides of a discussion. Right after the part quoted by Human Events, he answers:
The president will be meeting with his National Security team this morning to talk about, well, the apparent discord here. Give us a preview of what this discussion might entail. When you have Secretary of State Powell saying, "Let's abide by the Geneva Convention," and then folks on the other side, we are told, saying "Wait a minute. If we hold them to that kind of status, then all they'll be required to give us is their name, rank and file number."
And yet, I understand what Secretary Powell is concerned about, and that is we're going to be fighting this war with people who are special forces, not people who are generally in uniform. And if unfortunately they somehow become detained, we would want them to be treated in an appropriate way consistent with the Geneva Convention.[emphasis added]And when he's asked how he would resolve the issue, Holder ultimately says:
I can understand the tensions that exist, but I think the way to resolve it is, in fact, the way Secretary Powell has proposed, which is to say these are not people who are prisoners of war as that has been defined, but who are entitled to, in our own interests, entitled to be treated in a very humane way and almost consistent with all of the dictates of the Geneva Convention. [emphasis added]So what about a "flip-flop"?
I think this would constitute a lie. By Human Events and by the Pittsburgh Tribune Review. They should know better. It took me all of 10 minutes to find the truth. It should not have taken them any longer.
Looks like they're the ones putting political considerations above common sense (and reality).