What is left of the Republican Party has come out swinging against President Barack Obama's pick to the Supreme Court, a judge on the Second Circuit Appeals Court Sonia Sotomayor, a woman who symbolizes Obama's vision of America, his character, and reminds me why I became so fascinated with this man and voted so enthusiastically for him.
A child of Puerto Rican immigrants whose father died when she was 9, only a year after she was diagnosed with diabetes, grew up in the Bronx projects and went on to graduate summa cum laude from Ivy League Schools entering into the creme of the crop of the country's jurists, Sotomayor echoes the American dream of the post-WWII era: her parents moved to the US in order to participate in the emergence of the United States as an economic superpower. Sonia does not represent the American Dream ONLY because of the things she did, but MOSTLY because of the things she was ABLE to do in this country. Anywhere else on this planet, as a child of immigrants, living in a poor neighborhood, a single parent-home, she would have been faced with so many barriers that she would have not have been able to become a fully integrated national citizen. In America she did. This is not to say that most individuals who face adverse circumstance in this country make it. On the contrary, most do not and not because of some genetic flaws but because economic and the consequent social adversity is almost impossible to overcome. But, her life does mean that at least some, even if only a few, do make it in this country precisely because of what this country means to them. And in this respect, Sonia Sotomayor is a shining beacon of the American dream.
From the moment I read her short bio as she emerged as one of the finalists, some weeks before Obama finally picked her, I was convinced it would be her. Anyone who has read "Dreams from My Father," or even the "The Audacity of Hope," or listened to Obama's marvelous speech on race in Philadelphia would have been able to make the same prediction. Obama's genius lies not in some Messiah gene, but in his uncanny ability not so much to read the mood of the country as to shape this mood. How does he shape it? By cleverly rummaging through the disparate narratives that make up this country--slavery, immigration, racism--and picking out not only those that suit his background, but ALL of the strands, tying them together, and presenting the unified quilt of THE American narrative to the American people. This is why he picked Sonia Sotomayor. It has nothing to do with her specific Supreme Court credentials and has everything to do with Obama's vision of America. And it is for this reason, I am still an enthusiastic supporter of this man.
In nominating her to the Supreme Court, Obama has also brilliantly exposed the intellectual exhaustion, xenophobia and plain stupidity of the far-right in this country which is what is left of the GOP. Their character assassinations of Sotomayor show just how out of touch they are with the self-perception of America in the year 2009.
First: the GOP has a static vision of America that is stuck somewhere between mid-late 19th century. Their claim that Sotomayor's "empathy" is detrimental to her ability to make "objective" decisions would be funny if it were uttered by a five-year old, but is otherwise tragic since it is uttered by adult men (and few women) in suits. There is no such thing as "objective" decision. Our Constitution is not the Shari'a, or God's revelation, but man-made law that is necessarily continuously re-interpreted to suit the changing demographics and mood of the country. If it were up to the likes of Mitch McConnell and Rush Limbaugh we would still be interpreting "all men are created equal" to mean that blacks and women are not human beings.
Second criticism from the far-right has been that she will be a policy maker. Newsflash: judges are policy makers. As a judge on an appeals court, Sotomayor was necessarily a policy maker. If the Republicans bothered to learn how the law actually worked in reality (and not their wacko minds), they would realize that an appeals judge rules on specific cases and thus elaborates a previously general law into the minutiae of everyday life, and in doing so, every judge will necessarily tap into their previous experience and yes (gasp) emotion to make a judgment. The judges deciding Brown Vs. Board of Education did not use a footnote in a law ruling but their common sense to declare that black kids are as human as the rest of us.
Finally, the third and the most upsetting criticism has been that she is simultaneously, a racist and a man-hater. As evidence, the nutjobs who belong in a mental institution and not Wolf Blitzer's "Situation Room" (although sometimes I honestly cannot tell the difference between the two) claim that because she has emphasized her Latina identity and has served for Latina advocacy groups that she is a racist. The same goes for her gender identity. This criticism again would be funny if it did not echo the tragic intellectual depravity of the so-called Republican opposition. If these children in suits would bother to read a single book on racial and gender identity they would quickly realize that when a minority racial group claims its identity that is not the same thing as whites claiming their own race. This is simply because in a formerly "white" country where non-whites were considered less than human, it was non-whiteness that had been marked for centuries and whiteness had been seen as normal! The same goes for gender identity. Thus, nobody questioned Samuel Alito or Roberts about how their "whitness" might impact their rulings. Precisely, because whiteness is tragically still seen as the standard of racial normativity. In terms of gender identity, I know that Republicans are terrified of intelligent women (lest they confirm their own intellectual cowardice and ineptitude), but at least they should not be honest about it if they ever want to be anywhere near the corridors of power in this country.
In conclusion, the shrillness, the stupidity, and the plain meanness of the far-right attacks on Obama's vision of America--echoed by Sonia Sotomayor's life story--almost guarantee that the Republicans will remain in wilderness for some time and when they finally re-emerge they will necessarily have to be a better party. And we will all be better for it.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Saturday, May 23, 2009
"Prolonged detention" is un-American
President Obama has really been impressive in reversing some major Bush-era blunders of this country's approach to fighting the scourge of terrorism: his insistent commitment to close down the Gitmo concentration camp, his ban of torture and the re-institution of the Army Field Manual in guiding interrogation methods, and his genuine desire to bring back the rule of law to the US' fight against terrorism. He has consistently tried, often bending over backwards, to resolve the mess inherited from the Bush-Cheney regime. But while I do not doubt that he is a genuinely decent, thoughtful, and honest man, I do think President Obama has disappointed many of his hardcore supporters, such as myself, in completely reversing the Bush course. I have written about his intention to revive the illegal military tribunals. His proposal for the so-called "prolonged detentions," however, represents the most gut-wrenching disappointment.
President Obama vowed during his campaign to revive the rule of law that had been so mercilessly stamped upon by the Bush-Cheney regime. Now he is arguing that at Gitmo there are about 100 prisoners who are so dangerous that they could never be released, but also cannot be tried. Why? How is it that we know that they are dangerous if that cannot be proved in a court of law? Obama has never made this case persuasively and has instead, asked us to trust the government when it tells us that these people are dangerous. The main difference between a democracy and a totalitarian regime is the fact that in a democracy people do not blindly trust the government's arguments--particularly in incarcerating people--but that the government has to PROVE its case. This is why we have the court of law. In a totalitarian regime, the people are either terrified to question the government's motives or are blinded by the leader's charisma and the national security interests to question these motives. As a result, many innocent people inevitably end up on the receiving end of these policies. What guarantees can President Obama give us that his successor(s) will not apply/extend the policy of "prolonged detention" to US citizens? What if a few years from now, a different group of people--say, Bosnians--become isolated as a security threat. I am screwed! While this hypothetical case might seem ridiculous to us now who would have thought ten years ago that our President would be arguing that he had the right to incarcerate people indefinitely on the basis of some secret evidence that he/she cannot reveal to the US citizens?! This after the previous administration authorized torture in order to sell an unpopular war to the American public!
If we are indeed holding people who are dangerous to be released, the government has a constitutional duty to prove this! If so, put them in a max-security prison for the rest of their lives. If they cannot prove, you have to let them go. You can track them and make sure they do not pose a threat, but you cannot hold them indefinitely.
While I have complete confidence in this President and have no doubt that he would not misuse this power, I strongly object to him making the policy of "prolonged detention" the bedrock of American justice. It is actually a betrayal of the American ideal of justice.
President Obama vowed during his campaign to revive the rule of law that had been so mercilessly stamped upon by the Bush-Cheney regime. Now he is arguing that at Gitmo there are about 100 prisoners who are so dangerous that they could never be released, but also cannot be tried. Why? How is it that we know that they are dangerous if that cannot be proved in a court of law? Obama has never made this case persuasively and has instead, asked us to trust the government when it tells us that these people are dangerous. The main difference between a democracy and a totalitarian regime is the fact that in a democracy people do not blindly trust the government's arguments--particularly in incarcerating people--but that the government has to PROVE its case. This is why we have the court of law. In a totalitarian regime, the people are either terrified to question the government's motives or are blinded by the leader's charisma and the national security interests to question these motives. As a result, many innocent people inevitably end up on the receiving end of these policies. What guarantees can President Obama give us that his successor(s) will not apply/extend the policy of "prolonged detention" to US citizens? What if a few years from now, a different group of people--say, Bosnians--become isolated as a security threat. I am screwed! While this hypothetical case might seem ridiculous to us now who would have thought ten years ago that our President would be arguing that he had the right to incarcerate people indefinitely on the basis of some secret evidence that he/she cannot reveal to the US citizens?! This after the previous administration authorized torture in order to sell an unpopular war to the American public!
If we are indeed holding people who are dangerous to be released, the government has a constitutional duty to prove this! If so, put them in a max-security prison for the rest of their lives. If they cannot prove, you have to let them go. You can track them and make sure they do not pose a threat, but you cannot hold them indefinitely.
While I have complete confidence in this President and have no doubt that he would not misuse this power, I strongly object to him making the policy of "prolonged detention" the bedrock of American justice. It is actually a betrayal of the American ideal of justice.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Religion or prejudice
Religions are political ideologies. They are based on historical myths, stories, messianic prophecies, and are supposed to provide blueprints for everyday behavior. This is why religion is as open to criticism and public debate just like any other ideology. Which brings me to the Notre Dame controversy.
The same Catholic bishops who are protesting President Obama's visit to the campus and the university's decision to honor him with a degree are the ones who did not say a word when the same school awarded President George W. Bush an honorary degree in 2001 despite the fact that Bush had signed over 140 death warrants while the governor of Texas. The same Catholic clergy did not say a word about withdrawing this honor from Bush after the information about torture camps, Gitmo, and illegal wars came to light. Why didn't they say anything? Because Catholic bishops use their robes to hide their deeply seated prejudices from the public eye. The cloak of religion is supposed to awe us into giving the Catholic Church immunity from exposing their silly and prejudiced beliefs to public scrutiny like we do with any other political institution/ideology.
In the case of abortion, the Catholic Church espouses the worst kind of misogyny--old gray-haired men (most of whom have never engaged in sex supposedly) deciding the fate of women's wombs. Their obsessive desire to control human behavior, and in particular, sexual behavior of women, should be condemned at every step of the way. Their quotations from the Bible in support of their prejudices should make us even more eager to confront their hate and call it what it truly is: superstition. The hypocrisy that the Catholic Church (just like every other institution of every other organized religion) has displayed with the hiding of pedophiles, turning the Pope into the biggest stock investor in Europe, to mention a few, is simply due to the fact that to repeat again, the Vatican is a political institution.
So these Catholic bishops cannot hide behind the cloak of religion and expect us all to cower in awe and not criticize their stupidity and resist their hate-mongering.
The same Catholic bishops who are protesting President Obama's visit to the campus and the university's decision to honor him with a degree are the ones who did not say a word when the same school awarded President George W. Bush an honorary degree in 2001 despite the fact that Bush had signed over 140 death warrants while the governor of Texas. The same Catholic clergy did not say a word about withdrawing this honor from Bush after the information about torture camps, Gitmo, and illegal wars came to light. Why didn't they say anything? Because Catholic bishops use their robes to hide their deeply seated prejudices from the public eye. The cloak of religion is supposed to awe us into giving the Catholic Church immunity from exposing their silly and prejudiced beliefs to public scrutiny like we do with any other political institution/ideology.
In the case of abortion, the Catholic Church espouses the worst kind of misogyny--old gray-haired men (most of whom have never engaged in sex supposedly) deciding the fate of women's wombs. Their obsessive desire to control human behavior, and in particular, sexual behavior of women, should be condemned at every step of the way. Their quotations from the Bible in support of their prejudices should make us even more eager to confront their hate and call it what it truly is: superstition. The hypocrisy that the Catholic Church (just like every other institution of every other organized religion) has displayed with the hiding of pedophiles, turning the Pope into the biggest stock investor in Europe, to mention a few, is simply due to the fact that to repeat again, the Vatican is a political institution.
So these Catholic bishops cannot hide behind the cloak of religion and expect us all to cower in awe and not criticize their stupidity and resist their hate-mongering.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Obama is wrong again
In a stunning reversal of his previous commitment to the rule of law and transparency President Obama announced that he would fight the Second Circuit court ruling to release some 2000 Pentagon-owned photos showing prisoner abuse by our troops. In justifying his decision, President Obama said that the airing of these photos would endanger our troops in combat zones and further aflame the anti-American opinion in the Arab world. This argument makes absolutely no sense.
First, the Arab world has already seen the kind of torture the Bush administration approved at the highest levels: Abu Ghraib, Guntanamo, CIA dark sites. All of this is old news. What has been the refreshing piece of good "new" news was Obama's promise to uphold American values and the rule of law. The beginning has been promising: the order ending torture, closing Guantanamo, publishing torture memos, leaving the door open to prosecutions of Bush officials who approved tortured, etc. Obama has done more for the safety of our troops and our image in the world in his first 100 days than both Clinton and Bush had done during their two terms. This is why his reversal of this policy is so disappointing.
Given the fact that the world already knows these photos are pretty bad covering them up only makes things worse and makes a mockery of our rule of law. As Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington university said, it is not up to the President to release or not release the photos. This is a court order, issued in a response to the ACLU lawsuit under the freedom of information act, telling the Pentagon that it HAS to release the photos. In its ruling, the 2nd Circuit court answered the very argument that President Obama uses now to block the release of these photographs: the public interest in seeing these photos and airing the past crimes outweighs the vague notions of inflaming anti-US opinion. In other words, it is Bush administration's policies that have ALREADY made our troops less safe and not Obama's intention to reverse these policies. Keeping the photos secret only prolongs the cancerous growth around our image and it is the secrecy that continues to inflame the anti-American sentiment.
What is particularly important about these photos--and I suspect is the main reason Obama reversed his decision--is the fact that 2000 of these images show that rather than being the result of a "few bad apples," the torture and abuse of detainees in Iraq was a widespread POLICY among the soldiers directly authorized and inspired by those torture memos drafted at the highest levels of the US government. So not releasing these photos is also a disservice to our men and women in uniform, most of whom are honorable and courageous individuals who have dedicated their lives to this country. The photos would put to rest once and for all the argument--cynically put forward by Cheney and Bush--that it was a few deranged soldiers who committed these abuses. No, it was Bush's abrogation of our commitment to the Geneva Conventions and the subsequent drafting of torture memos by Bush lawyers that led to this type of behavior. According to anonymous sources, the photos show many of the very same techniques that Yoo, Bybee, and Bradbury approved at the Office of Legal Counsel.
I still think that the Obama administration will lose this case because the argument they are using is so flimsy and has already been rejected by a court. I also think this is a very politically clever ploy of Obama to make it seem like it was forced to release the photos: in other words, they might be expecting to lose the case but then they have political cover against the backlash.
But in the process of this political game, Obama is hurting the rule of law by making the argument that the government can block the Freedom of Information process from taking place simply because the information released might embarrass the government. That's the whole point! The Freedom of Information Act is an invaluable tool the public has to air our government's policies and shame the government into respecting the rule of law in case law has been violated. And in the case of the Bush administration, the law had been not only violated, but our very Constitution was defecated upon repeatedly.
First, the Arab world has already seen the kind of torture the Bush administration approved at the highest levels: Abu Ghraib, Guntanamo, CIA dark sites. All of this is old news. What has been the refreshing piece of good "new" news was Obama's promise to uphold American values and the rule of law. The beginning has been promising: the order ending torture, closing Guantanamo, publishing torture memos, leaving the door open to prosecutions of Bush officials who approved tortured, etc. Obama has done more for the safety of our troops and our image in the world in his first 100 days than both Clinton and Bush had done during their two terms. This is why his reversal of this policy is so disappointing.
Given the fact that the world already knows these photos are pretty bad covering them up only makes things worse and makes a mockery of our rule of law. As Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington university said, it is not up to the President to release or not release the photos. This is a court order, issued in a response to the ACLU lawsuit under the freedom of information act, telling the Pentagon that it HAS to release the photos. In its ruling, the 2nd Circuit court answered the very argument that President Obama uses now to block the release of these photographs: the public interest in seeing these photos and airing the past crimes outweighs the vague notions of inflaming anti-US opinion. In other words, it is Bush administration's policies that have ALREADY made our troops less safe and not Obama's intention to reverse these policies. Keeping the photos secret only prolongs the cancerous growth around our image and it is the secrecy that continues to inflame the anti-American sentiment.
What is particularly important about these photos--and I suspect is the main reason Obama reversed his decision--is the fact that 2000 of these images show that rather than being the result of a "few bad apples," the torture and abuse of detainees in Iraq was a widespread POLICY among the soldiers directly authorized and inspired by those torture memos drafted at the highest levels of the US government. So not releasing these photos is also a disservice to our men and women in uniform, most of whom are honorable and courageous individuals who have dedicated their lives to this country. The photos would put to rest once and for all the argument--cynically put forward by Cheney and Bush--that it was a few deranged soldiers who committed these abuses. No, it was Bush's abrogation of our commitment to the Geneva Conventions and the subsequent drafting of torture memos by Bush lawyers that led to this type of behavior. According to anonymous sources, the photos show many of the very same techniques that Yoo, Bybee, and Bradbury approved at the Office of Legal Counsel.
I still think that the Obama administration will lose this case because the argument they are using is so flimsy and has already been rejected by a court. I also think this is a very politically clever ploy of Obama to make it seem like it was forced to release the photos: in other words, they might be expecting to lose the case but then they have political cover against the backlash.
But in the process of this political game, Obama is hurting the rule of law by making the argument that the government can block the Freedom of Information process from taking place simply because the information released might embarrass the government. That's the whole point! The Freedom of Information Act is an invaluable tool the public has to air our government's policies and shame the government into respecting the rule of law in case law has been violated. And in the case of the Bush administration, the law had been not only violated, but our very Constitution was defecated upon repeatedly.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Democrats' complicity in a war crime
In their forceful (and admittingly, successful) campaign to block any torture investigations, the Republicans have made their point: some of the leading Democrats were implicated in Bush's torture policies. They released outlines of CIA briefings of top Democrats on the intelligence committee, including the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, in which it becomes fairly clear that she--along with other Democrats (Rockefeller of W. Virginia and Harman of California)--was told that CIA would use waterboarding. The fact that the briefing took place in September, while Abu Zubaydah had been water boarded in August, shows that the Bush administration did not care one bit about following the law or informing the other branches of the government BEFORE committing this war crime. But the brief also shows that Pelosi said nothing--not a word!--about these techniques. Her explanation really insults the intelligence of the average American: "we were told that these techniques could be used and not that they were going to be used or that they had been used"!!! Even if this was the case--which I highly doubt--Pelosi should have raised objections to this and threatened to go public if this continued. Yes, this would be a great political risk, but what good is power if you do not utilize it for the common good.
And Pelosi, as well as most of the Democratic mainstream establishment, (with the fine exception of Russ Feingold of Wisconsin among others), went along with everything that Bush wanted them to go along with. Arguably, it is this complicity that allowed Bush to plunge our country into the abyss of war crimes, deep recession, and to tarnish our image abroad. Pelosi should come clean to the American people about her role, her knowledge, of torture techniques, or otherwise, resign!
Now it becomes clear to me why the Democratic establishment is using "let's be united" baby talk to obstruct the course of justice in holding those who tortured accountable. As one of my favorite constitutional scholars Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University, has consistently and passionately argued, a criminal investigation of torture is not A CHOICE, but a CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION of our government. The investigation should hold everyone involved accountable: whether they are Democrat, Republican, or Marsian for that matter. The future of our democracy and our rule of law is truly at stake in this case.
The Times report about the Pelosi role in all of this is even more worrying in the light of the leak from the Justice Department that Holder might not appoint a special prosecutor instead, referring the case of the lawyers who drafted the torture memos to the American Bar Association, for possible disbarrement. As Professor Turley has argued, the Bar Association has no authority to investigate fully their criminal enterprise, only to the extent to which it affected their professional conduct and the worst punishment it can mete out is to disbar them.
Yes, disbarment for a war crime, that is certainly the penalty that fits the crime! If this proves to be the outcome, then the international community, the Hague Tribunal, and the United States should apologize to Serbia for holding their former President in the prison for war crimes when they could have just disbarred him, instead of letting him die in prison.
And Pelosi, as well as most of the Democratic mainstream establishment, (with the fine exception of Russ Feingold of Wisconsin among others), went along with everything that Bush wanted them to go along with. Arguably, it is this complicity that allowed Bush to plunge our country into the abyss of war crimes, deep recession, and to tarnish our image abroad. Pelosi should come clean to the American people about her role, her knowledge, of torture techniques, or otherwise, resign!
Now it becomes clear to me why the Democratic establishment is using "let's be united" baby talk to obstruct the course of justice in holding those who tortured accountable. As one of my favorite constitutional scholars Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University, has consistently and passionately argued, a criminal investigation of torture is not A CHOICE, but a CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION of our government. The investigation should hold everyone involved accountable: whether they are Democrat, Republican, or Marsian for that matter. The future of our democracy and our rule of law is truly at stake in this case.
The Times report about the Pelosi role in all of this is even more worrying in the light of the leak from the Justice Department that Holder might not appoint a special prosecutor instead, referring the case of the lawyers who drafted the torture memos to the American Bar Association, for possible disbarrement. As Professor Turley has argued, the Bar Association has no authority to investigate fully their criminal enterprise, only to the extent to which it affected their professional conduct and the worst punishment it can mete out is to disbar them.
Yes, disbarment for a war crime, that is certainly the penalty that fits the crime! If this proves to be the outcome, then the international community, the Hague Tribunal, and the United States should apologize to Serbia for holding their former President in the prison for war crimes when they could have just disbarred him, instead of letting him die in prison.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Obama and the rule of law
There is a growing concern among those of us who believe in the rule of law that Obama will retreat on the central promise of his campaign to restore the rule of law in trying the Gitmo detainees. The NYT is reporting this morning that the administration is increasingly leaning towards keeping the military commission system that Bush had set up and that Obama criticized harshly during his campaign. Anonymous sources within the administration say that the reason why they might keep the commissions is because our federal court system would make it difficult for the government to convict?
Obama is kidding right? What kind of an argument is this? The government thinks the cards are stacked up against it in the court of law, so it will create its own more favorable law universe? This is completely unacceptable! The federal court system IS our rule of law and the government has no legal authority to shortcut the law in order to win a case. I mean, this is what the rule of law is all about!
The administration's increasing disenchantment with the idea of the federal courts trying the Gitmo suspects is due to two main reasons: 1) federal judges do not allow evidence obtained under torture; and 2) hearsay evidence is not permitted. Both of these supposed weaknesses of our federal court system is what makes our rule of law uniform for all human beings no matter what crimes they are accused of! So, if we tortured the suspects in order to obtain "evidence" from them, we committed a war crime and if we do lose the case, then we lose the case. The consequent release of the suspects would be the result NOT of the supposed weakness of our courts, but to our own crimes! Secondly, when it comes to hearsay: this only shows the weakness of our government's case against many of these detainees. Keep in mind that according to a study done a few years back (and which I cited on this blog before) only 5% of Gitmo suspects had known Al-Q links and most of them were captured by Pakistani warlords in exchange for generous bounty our soldiers were offering. So, admitting hearsay evidence in this case is a total betrayal of the very ideal of the rule of law of which we boast so often.
Obama would be betraying his oath of office if he allowed these commissions to continue and would seriously undermine our claim to be the nation of laws. Military commissions should be disbanded, and all suspects tried in the court of law, not some made up "court of law," but our federal court system.
The government has NO CHOICE but to follow the law come what may!
Obama is kidding right? What kind of an argument is this? The government thinks the cards are stacked up against it in the court of law, so it will create its own more favorable law universe? This is completely unacceptable! The federal court system IS our rule of law and the government has no legal authority to shortcut the law in order to win a case. I mean, this is what the rule of law is all about!
The administration's increasing disenchantment with the idea of the federal courts trying the Gitmo suspects is due to two main reasons: 1) federal judges do not allow evidence obtained under torture; and 2) hearsay evidence is not permitted. Both of these supposed weaknesses of our federal court system is what makes our rule of law uniform for all human beings no matter what crimes they are accused of! So, if we tortured the suspects in order to obtain "evidence" from them, we committed a war crime and if we do lose the case, then we lose the case. The consequent release of the suspects would be the result NOT of the supposed weakness of our courts, but to our own crimes! Secondly, when it comes to hearsay: this only shows the weakness of our government's case against many of these detainees. Keep in mind that according to a study done a few years back (and which I cited on this blog before) only 5% of Gitmo suspects had known Al-Q links and most of them were captured by Pakistani warlords in exchange for generous bounty our soldiers were offering. So, admitting hearsay evidence in this case is a total betrayal of the very ideal of the rule of law of which we boast so often.
Obama would be betraying his oath of office if he allowed these commissions to continue and would seriously undermine our claim to be the nation of laws. Military commissions should be disbanded, and all suspects tried in the court of law, not some made up "court of law," but our federal court system.
The government has NO CHOICE but to follow the law come what may!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)