Ron Demarest – 7/10/06

This page was last updated on July 10, 2006.

The Constitution still applies; Ron Demarest; Beaver County Times; July 10, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“In a letter published June 30, The Times was attacked for an article about Haditha (‘Guilty by accusation’).

“The writer and President Bush are on the same page. Blame the press and the courts.”

[RWC] Dick Huff, author of the subject letter, blamed “the press” only for assigning guilt before all the facts were in or until after the courts martial if charges are filed. All we have right now is a “trial by leaks.”

Mr. Huff didn’t mention or blame “the courts” for anything.

For a couple of examples of accused soldiers being exonerated, please read my critique of “No excuses.”

“Contrary to the writer’s impression, the Marine Corps itself concluded that the civilians at Haditha died of gunshots, not an IED explosion as initially claimed. They briefed U.S. Rep. John Murtha.”

[RWC] Mr. Huff never wrote one word about how the Haditha deaths occurred. Therefore, how can Mr. Demarest write, “Contrary to the writer’s impression …”?

Whether briefed or not, what right does a congressman have to proclaim as fact that the accused Marines “killed innocent civilians in cold blood?” Couldn’t Murtha have waited for the investigation to be complete or until after the courts martial if charges are filed?

“As the writer pointed out, there’s been no indictment and an accusation isn’t proof. That’s also true of ‘captured murdering terrorists’ at Gitmo.”

[RWC] Mr. Demarest has just drawn a moral equivalence between U.S. Marines and terrorists captured on the battlefield.

“How do we know an accused detainee is a terrorist if we assume he’s too evil to deserve a fair trail [sic] or its equivalent? Are serial child rapists less evil? How about Timothy McVeigh?”

[RWC] No one said accused terrorists shouldn’t get fair trials. All the arguing has been about trial mechanics. That is, would accused terrorists be tried in military tribunals – as historically has been the case with enemy combatants – or in a civilian court with the accused granted all the rights of a U.S. citizen.

“We’re told you don’t get it, this is war, and that the rules don’t apply. But in the 60 years between Pearl Harbor and Sept. 11, 2001, how often weren’t we at war with people more dangerous than al-Qaida? Remember the Cuban missile crisis or home fall-out shelters?”

[RWC] Military commissions have been used to try enemy combatants since at least the Mexican-American War. The Supreme Court unanimously approved FDR’s use of tribunals during World War II. Why were they OK for FDR but not today?

“Bush thinks the Constitution applies only in those brief moments between wars. Bush deftly believes in the use of torture. That’s why he opposed the McCain amendment and forced a show down in the Hamdan case.”

[RWC] I don’t know about President Bush, but I opposed the McCain bill for two reasons. First, existing law already banned torture. The McCain bill was nothing but a political stunt by a president want-to-be. Second, what kind of message does it send to our enemy to tell him he’ll be treated with kid gloves?

What did torture have to do with the Hamdan case? Hamdan was about trying an accused terrorist (allegedly bin Laden’s bodyguard and driver) in a military tribunal instead of in a civilian court. We saw what a mess it was trying a terrorist in a civilian court in the Moussaoui case. Lest we forget, Congress agreed with President Bush, as did the Washington DC Circuit Court of Appeals and four of the nine Supreme Court justices.

“In rendering his court decision in 1999 that physical interrogation was unlawful, even in ticking bomb situations, Justice Barak, President of Israel’s Supreme Court, wrote, ‘We are aware that this decision does not ease dealing with harsh reality. This is the destiny of democracy as not all means are acceptable to it, although a democracy must often fight with one hand tied behind its back; it nonetheless has the upper hand. Preserving the rule of law and recognition of an individual’s liberty constitutes an important component in its understanding of security.’”

[RWC] I do not care what the court of any foreign country rules. FYI, Saint McCain implied his law likely would not be enforced in a “ticking bomb” situation.

“‘Guilty by accusation’ is wrong for all. It is the right of all to say, ‘Bring the accuser forward.’”

[RWC] “‘Guilty by accusation’ is wrong for all?” If you’ve read Mr. Demarest’s letters since at least August 2004, you know his letters are all about assigning guilt by accusation, and Mr. Demarest doesn’t let facts get in the way of his accusations. Read my critiques of those letters to see what I mean.