is a method of best balancing the laws and the need to separate prosecution of the terrorists picked up from safe havens or battlefield sites from the traditional criminal prosecution processes. Bush's idea of the military tribunals had merit, but was put together without regard to satisfying potential legal implications and requirements...(in other words was simply "sloppy" in structure) Obama's strong point/background has been his understanding of legal issues and overall legal comprehension. The result is a revamped and strengthened military tribunal system with greater accountability merit. Killing the military tribunals would have likely been more popular by some on the left, or a majority on the far left, but I think this was a very good decision...thoughts?
Obama is between a rock and a hard place - he can't send them back to the regular judicial system, because the illegal activities of the Bush adminisitration have made it impossible for the government to try any case against these guys in a regular court. The natural solution then is to make the ad hoc tribunal silliness as much like a regular court as possible, then, if found guilty, send the offenders to regular prisons, here or abroad.
When the president sets up a bunch illegal prisons and allows evidence to be obtained under torture - which by itself ruins the chance of a regular court eve being able to use the evidence or hear the case - that is definitely his fault. Whose fault is it otherwise? Who else set up the illegal prisons and allowed torture?
I think Pelosi did it all? Cheney was known to clear things with her during their (shudder) little trysts.
Back on subject. Obama isn't restarting the tribunals as is but putting in some key changes. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30753356 [rquoter]Restrictions on hearsay evidence that can be used in court against the detainees. A ban on all evidence obtained through cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. This would include statements given from detainees who were subjected to waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning. Giving detainees greater leeway in choosing their own military counsel. Protecting detainees who refuse to testify from legal sanctions or other court prejudices. [/rquoter]
I think I pointed this out, but you expanded on the details...Anyhow I think it's for the best and I'm happy about this going forward. No actually the best scenario is the terrorists deciding to go out in glory, guns blazing in no particular direction while they receive incoming by our troops... till then this is 2nd best...
Thank god, or the supreme being of your choice. I haven't laughed that much since, well... since the middle of the 4th quarter. I started laughing hysterically, not stopping until after the game, when my wife shoved a margarita in my face. Hornitos for the win!
