The blogosphere has been abuzz with talk about yesterday’s ruling by the Supreme Court that the military tribunals established by President Bush to try the “unlawful combatants” aren’t legal.
Rather than link to everybody who’s been writing on the issue, I thought I’d offer the two thoughts that are at the top of my mind on the issue:
- I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment that the Executive cannot create an all-new judicial process by fiat alone. If the President needs new tools to protect the country, it shouldn’t be a problem to go to Congress to create appropriate, legal, mechanisms.
- I’m still uncomfortable with the whole “unlawful combatant” wishy-washy matter. If the folks at Gitmo are de facto prisoners of war, they should be treated as such, and be detained until they are not threats. And, of course, their captors should be held accountable for abiding by the standards imposed by the international agreements which the United States is party to.
However, if they’re criminals, they are entitled to a fair trial, with the ability to challenge their accusers, see the evidence against them, and to not be detained indefinitely without a hearing. These are things that our Founding Fathers fought for, due to the abuse they received at the hands of the British.
Has political thought in the U.S. degenerated to the point where we say, “it wasn’t OK for the British to do this to us, but it is OK for us to do it to everybody else”?