Is All Really Fair in War?
More signs that the Bush administration just plain doesn't get it. Okay, the Supreme Court says, basically, "C'mon guys. You have to give even terror suspects a fair trial." So the Bushies say, "Okay, we'll give the a military trial, but the defendant can't see the evidence against him, and doesn't necessarily have the right to be present at his trial."
Where does fair come into play there?
Are these men dangerous? Do they need to be locked up? Certainly, if the evidence released to the public is accurate. But if we have such a fantastic case against them, why do they need to, essentially, rig the trial?
Where does fair come into play there?
Are these men dangerous? Do they need to be locked up? Certainly, if the evidence released to the public is accurate. But if we have such a fantastic case against them, why do they need to, essentially, rig the trial?