The Hamdan Lawyer Speaks Out
I just read an interesting article written by Neal Kaytan, the lawyer who won the Hamdan case, wherein he argues that military courts-martial are the best way to try detainees at Guantánamo.
He makes a compelling case; I thought a civillian court would be the best option. Apparently many of today's lawyers hold the fallacious belief that the Uniform Code of Military Justice is just as unfair as the President's commissions are, according to the Justices in Hamdan.
I personally wonder how any trial can be fair, considering that a jury of the defendant's peers will invariably be Americans.
Nevertheless, I think the article was written poorly. I imagined Kaytan would write in a way that sounds like a legal opinion, e.g. citing precedents and is based on objective principles. Instead, he sounds like... well... a trial lawyer, lambasting the President, his party, and waxing principled about the Constitution. But then, I may just be a stickler for writing style.
He makes a compelling case; I thought a civillian court would be the best option. Apparently many of today's lawyers hold the fallacious belief that the Uniform Code of Military Justice is just as unfair as the President's commissions are, according to the Justices in Hamdan.
I personally wonder how any trial can be fair, considering that a jury of the defendant's peers will invariably be Americans.
Nevertheless, I think the article was written poorly. I imagined Kaytan would write in a way that sounds like a legal opinion, e.g. citing precedents and is based on objective principles. Instead, he sounds like... well... a trial lawyer, lambasting the President, his party, and waxing principled about the Constitution. But then, I may just be a stickler for writing style.