BCT Editorial – 6/8/07

This page was last updated on June 18, 2007.

Rule of law; Editorial; Beaver County Times; June 8, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The Bush administration’s penchant for vigilante justice has taken another major hit.”

[RWC] “Vigilante justice?” Let’s have some examples.

“On Monday, military judges ruled that the Pentagon could not prosecute Salim Ahmed Hamdan and Omar Khadr because they had not first been identified as ‘unlawful’ enemy combatants, as required by a law passed last year by Congress.

“Hamdan, of Yemen, is believed to have been chauffeur to al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, The Associated Press reported. Khadr is a Canadian who was arrested at 15 on an Afghan battlefield, accused of killing a U.S. soldier.

“The two were to be tried under the Military Commissions Act that was passed last year by a Republican-controlled Congress.

“The law was needed after the Supreme Court threw out President Bush’s previous system as illegal and in violation of international treaties.”

[RWC] As a reminder, “President Bush’s previous system” provided far more rights to accused illegal combatants than any previous system since the founding of the U.S.

“As the AP noted, Bush established the specialized tribunal system shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks but has not been able to convict a single terrorist because of legal hurdles.

“The military judges may have been splitting legal hairs, but their decisions marked another setback for this administration’s hang-’em-high approach to punishing terror suspects being held at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base (and fighting terrorism in general).”

[RWC] “Hang ‘em high?” Let’s have some examples.

“The military judges may have been splitting legal hairs?” How did this get by the proofreader?

“Given this administration’s obstinacy, how this will play out is anybody’s guess.

“However, one thing is clear. For the second time, the American system of justice was on trial and acquitted itself admirably by upholding the rule of law.

“This isn’t about terrorists having rights.”

[RWC] I’m not sure if this is right or not. I remember a bunch of editorials being upset that the U.S. was intercepting communications between people in the U.S. and terrorists abroad. It would have been more accurate to write, “This is about bashing President Bush.”

“It’s about upholding the integrity of the American judicial process, whether it be civilian or military.”

[RWC] Exactly how gullible does the Times believe its readers are? At anytime in U.S. history before President Bush took office, an illegal combatant caught on the battlefield would have been interrogated and then shot as a spy. Today, though, if an illegal combatant doesn’t get three square Islam-correct meals per day, a Koran, et cetera, it’s called torture.