Besides the excellent dissection, then there is this:
Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift who defend Hamdan: Well, you know, if you‘re looking at it from that way, we have a lot of criminals here in this country. And to prejudge anyone that we capture outside the country as a thug, why are we having a trial in the first place? We‘ve already decided they were guilty.
What the Supreme Court said is you have the trial first, you use the procedures that are set up under international law, and then you decide whether they‘re a thug. You don‘t make the thug determination going in.
Jane Hamsher says: It is simply a fact that the Democrats have a leg up on this one. They should not be afraid to use it The decision was handed down by eight justices, only two of whom (Ginsburg and Breyer) were appointed by a Democratic president (Clinton). This isn’t about Democrats being "soft on terror," it’s about Americans being firm on Democracy, anti-monarchical and appalled by torture. It’s really rather simple.
The schoolyard bullies only win this one if everyone on the other side stands down.
And the Democrats probably will- P_M
No comments:
Post a Comment