Wednesday, August 02, 2006

White House Proposal Would Expand Authority of Military Courts

So, let me get this straight. The Supreme Court rules the trial system illegal, so they're going to set up something in its place that seems to do all the same things and more?

I know it's hard for some people to understand, but even really, really, obviously bad people deserve due process. If we don't give it to everyone, then it's pretty much worthless, since someone can always stick you in the category of people to whom it is denied. To me, this concept is pretty basic to the foundation of America, and I don't understand how we can even suggest that it should be tossed aside so easily. What the hell is this War on Terror bullshit supposed to be about if not defending American principles? The concept of a war on terror is pretty abstract to me, anyway, and there's really no way we're ever going to lose it (or win it) on a battlefield. But we can certainly lose it if we sacrifice our values in the name of fighting it. But I guess that doesn't matter to some as long as we can say we're winning it.

Posted by

3 comments:

Chris Howard said...

Yeah, I just don't get people either. Due process for all or due process for none. It's not a complicated concept.

Westley (random internet loser) said...

Yeah, even someone like John deserves due process. Arguably.

Storm said...

I hate to jump into a debate without the full knowledge of the Supreme Court Case and the merits therein but I will say this Military tribunals were used in this country for over 200 years. They were used when citizens were caught conspiring with Nazis and the SUpreme Court then ruled the military court was appropriate in those instances. I understand the simplicity of your arguement but any broad sweeping statement usually fails to address every situation. In this case the proposed legislation if it is as advertised would likely be improper but the Supreme Court of today is wrong about military tribunals just as the Supreme Court of the 1800s was about Dred Scott.

But as I said I have not seen the Supreme court decision in its fullness and I will not base an arguement on the summarization of any newspaper reported regarding any bill without reading the bill.