Insane. Now Sessions want these people to be treated as prisoners of war? The whole point of inventing the "unlawful combatant" category was to avoid this. Because of, well, you know, the Geneva Conventions and all that.

HEY WAIT A MINUTE!

I thought the prisoner's at GITMO were "Enemy Combatants" and had no coverage under the Geneva Convention? So Session's is now saying the US has committed War Crimes?

That was the cornerstone of the Bush apologists' defense of W/Cheney's it's OK we can torture them argument, they're not POWs.

I swear, the GOP has turned into a bunch of monkeys, throwing anything they can get their hands on including their own droppings. Obama bows, dithers, is going too fast/slow, is a radical Commie, Nazi, Fascist, racists, Kenyan, rinse and repeat.

I guess when the Right/GOP can say, print (Palin's myth filled book), promote anything without any accountability by the Beltway Press, the GOP has no need for intellectually honest consistency in their claims.

How stooopid were Bush, Cheney and Rummy in calling them enemy combatants? And using the word "WAR"?
This elevates CRIMINAL activity to some level of warfare (or jihad), and really played into the hands of al quaeda.
Criminals get prosecuted in civilian courts. They are CRIMINAL nor warriors?

When did Sessions stop playing the banjo?

Here's what I don't get. Why are all of these chickenhawks so hell bent on making America look weak?

"Waaa, we're too scared of the terrorists, so let's hold them in another country because we don't have enough faith in our own prisons!"

"Waaa, we're too scared to try them in federal courts because they might say bad things about us!! Let's try them in secret so that we look like cowards with something to hide!!"

I just don't get their position. The right-wing is supposed to be so full of machismo, but every stance they've taken makes them look like terrified little cowards.

I mean, why are they hell-bent on giving these terrorists so much credibility? What makes them (the terrorists) sound more insignificant, making them "prisoners of war" as if they have a whole country behind their movement and trying them in military tribunals as enemies of the state? Or does it make them sound more insignificant to try them in federal court as nothing more than common criminals who committed a heinous crime?

It's bad enough that the right-wingers hate our country, but now they want to make us look as cowardly and afraid as possible. It's a sad joke with no punchline.

If the Senate were 'Star Trek' would Sessions be Marlena from the 'Mirror, Mirror' episode?

"I've been a captain's woman, and I like it. I'll be one again, if I have to go through every officer in the fleet."

For ole Lost Causer Sessions to equate the American Civil War as a real war is a laughable stretch. As that conflict progressed, Radical Republican's (think: Thaddeus Stevens) thought the correct legal result of the conflict was to treat the rebel insurgents as outside the protection of the Constitution and subject to the then current conventions of a defeated enemy of war. To the RR's this meant for the South, universal suffrage, political disenfranchisement of rebel leaders, confiscation of property, corporal punishment for leaders- like, real radical stuff. And of course history does not record these events unfolding.
If Sessions were correct about the South being a war- by past or present law- the North surer extracted some sure wimpy ass victors justice out of it. Or did I miss the history lesson about the trial and hanging of Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis?