Quote:
Originally Posted by UtahDan
I will just have to take solice in the fact that I am in good company here.
Yeah I can only really keep up with OUR discussion and even so am probably wasting too much billable time on it. :-)
I'm surprised to hear you say that military tribunals would be okay with you. I think most folks anywhere left of center have rejected them and insisted that federal courts should be where these trials take place. I actually think this is fine as well. Here again, though, the devil is in the details. Which rights would be the baseline natural rights we would have to give them. Right to counsel? Okay. Right to confront and cross examine witnesses? Okay. Right to examine evidence? Hmmm. What if it is classified and could lead to soliders or intelligence officers being compromised. what if the accuser is an undercover asset? Right to compulsory process to get any witnesses in their favor present? Not as clear, that could include a lot of folks we can't reach. I think all of this points up, however, that this is an extremely thorny issue without a clean answer. Again, I give the administration credit for trying to deal with it although belatedly. I don't think they had to.
Frequently, and most of the time I'm not even aware of it.
|
In the context of a discussion on natural rights, I think the standard required is one of fairness. I think there are limitless possibilities for forming a standard that provides fairness. Some may include counsel, some may not. We are only interested in if the person got a fair shake or not when all is said and done. Our constitutional standard, however, may require more.
As for this administration, they are only dealing with it because they DID have to (once their hand was forced by the Supreme Court). If not for that, these people would be sitting in a prison cell without a second thought to fair treatment or their rights. I don't give the administration any credit for doing what they were forced to do.