Obama's Solicitor General nominee says 'enemy combatants' can be held without trial

[cykoe6]

Change we can believe in.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,7158432.story

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

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.


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.

If confirmed as U.S. solicitor general, Kagan, 48, will defend the administration's legal policy in the courts.

During the Bush administration, the solicitor general argued for the White House's war-on-terrorism policies, including the president's decision to imprison foreign fighters and alleged terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Last year, the Supreme Court dealt the Bush administration a setback when it ruled that these alleged "enemy combatants" had a right to be heard by a judge and to plead for their freedom. But the high court left unanswered the question of whether accused terrorists and others with suspected ties to Al Qaeda could be held for years without trial.

That issue is now before the Obama administration. The new president has announced that the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay will be closed, and he has created a task force of lawyers and military officers to decide how to handle current and future detainees. The group will be led by Holder and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.

In 2004, the high court agreed with the Bush administration that battlefield prisoners can be imprisoned for the duration of the war. Its decision came in the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S.-born Taliban fighter who was captured in Afghanistan. It is not clear whether the same applies to civilians who are captured as suspected terrorists.

Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) both raised the issue Tuesday. Feinstein called it "a fundamental question as we consider the end planning for detainees as Guantanamo is closed."

Graham, a former Air Force lawyer, stressed the stark difference between criminal law and the law of war. He and Kagan agreed that under criminal law, no person can be held indefinitely without a trial.

"Do you believe we are at war?" Graham asked.

"I do, Senator," Kagan replied.

Graham cited the example of someone who is not carrying a gun or fighting on a battlefield. "If our intelligence agencies should capture someone in the Philippines that is suspected of financing Al Qaeda worldwide, would you consider that person part of the battlefield?" he asked. He added that he had asked the same question of Holder, who replied that he agreed that person was on the battlefield.

"Do you agree with that?" the senator said.

"I do," Kagan replied.

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.

Civil liberties advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First, have urged the Obama administration to follow the U.S. rules of criminal justice in such cases. Under these rules, civilians who are alleged to conspire with terrorists must be charged with a crime and given a trial.

[czarina]

and here I was, thinking they were closing Guantanamo for the right reasons...

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Prisoners of war. Nice. I agree. If the guys we got at Guantanomo have record of being AQ operatives, did things in the name of AQ then yeah.

POW them and throw away the key.

[fatfoo]

Without trial, eh, that's not fair.

[cykoe6]

I thought only that evil war criminal Bushhitler believed in renditions and holding enemy combatant without trial. Does this mean Obama is a war criminal too?

[Ethersync]

Originally Posted by cykoe6

Does this mean Obama is a war criminal too?

Time will tell....

[baddog]

Originally Posted by czarina

and here I was, thinking they were closing Guantanamo for the right reasons...

What reasons would those be?

[Snake Doctor]

There are dozens of solicitors general working for the President. Why is this news when she says it and it wasn't news when the Attorney General supposedly said it last month?

The opinion of one government lawyer is hardly the opinion of the President nor is she stating what the administration's policy is going to be, she's just stating her interpretation of the law.

I love how President Obama is now supposedly responsible for everything everyone in the executive branch says now. "Obama's AG said this.....Obama's econ advisor said this about white people"....."Obama's nominee for HHS screwed up his tax return".....and therefore, Obama = Bad.

mmmmmkay

[dav3]

Dr. Paul 2012!

[cykoe6]

More change?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...ets/index.html

Obama Administration Maintains Bush Position on 'Extraordinary Rendition' Lawsuit

The Obama Administration today announced that it would keep the same position as the Bush Administration in the lawsuit Mohamed et al v Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc.

A source inside of the Ninth U.S. District Court tells ABC News that a representative of the Justice Department stood up to say that its position hasn't changed, that new administration stands behind arguments that previous administration made, with no ambiguity at all. The DOJ lawyer said the entire subject matter remains a state secret.

This is not going to please civil libertarians and human rights activists who had hoped the Obama administration would allow the lawsuit to proceed.

[A] lawyer for the government, Douglas N. Letter, made the same state-secrets argument on Monday, startling several judges on the panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

?Is there anything material that has happened? that might have caused the Justice Department to shift its views, asked Judge Mary M. Schroeder, an appointee of President Jimmy Carter, coyly referring to the recent election.

?No, your honor,? Mr. Letter replied.

?The change in administration has no bearing?? she asked.

?No, your honor,? he said once more. The position he was taking in court on behalf of the government had been ?thoroughly vetted with the appropriate officials within the new administration,? and ?these are the authorized positions,? he said.

[cykoe6]

We are the ones we have been waiting for!

[_Richard_]

i'm beginning to think these 'warcrimes' are just the US Gov between a rock and a hard place..

these guys can't go anywhere, no one will take them.

What they should do, is just 'free them' and let them figure out where to go themselves.. haha

not imprisonment if they have no choice but to stay!