Well, that says it all, really...
"Republicans recognise the serious nature of the terrorist threat and believe the President should have every tool at his disposal to protect the American people," House of Representatives majority leader John Boehner said of the legislation [allowing tribunals and harsh interrogations].
Note how Boehner says "every tool", not "every tool within the framework of 220 years of American jurisprudence" (or something snappier).
And the distinction is important, and I think it cuts to the heart of the matter.
Now, I think most of us would agree that being nasty to terrorists is an entirely reasonable thing to do. The problem is that this law isn't about that, it's about being nasty to people who may, or may not, be terrorists.
If we think back to the height of the Cold War, we see cases like those of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, who were convicted and executed for spying for the Soviet Union. For many years, people argued about how they were framed or caught up in a witch hunt... but we now know that they were guilty as sin, and the government knew that at the time, but was NEVER going to introduce the evidence in open court. (The evidence was based on intercepts of communications between the Soviet Embassy and Moscow, now known as the VENONA Intercepts).
In retrospect, it seems clear that their trials were rigged, and (although he was undeniably guily of everything, she was also undeniably less involved than he was) the sentence extreme (well, obviously) and probably not justifiable.
And THAT was without the in camera evidence that can now be used -- in clear violation of the Bill of Rights -- against terrorist suspects.
Back to terrorism: it seems to me inevitable that someone will, ultimately, get convicted unjustly. And they will have their rights to appeal impaired.
And that seems utterly un-American.
Note how Boehner says "every tool", not "every tool within the framework of 220 years of American jurisprudence" (or something snappier).
And the distinction is important, and I think it cuts to the heart of the matter.
Now, I think most of us would agree that being nasty to terrorists is an entirely reasonable thing to do. The problem is that this law isn't about that, it's about being nasty to people who may, or may not, be terrorists.
If we think back to the height of the Cold War, we see cases like those of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, who were convicted and executed for spying for the Soviet Union. For many years, people argued about how they were framed or caught up in a witch hunt... but we now know that they were guilty as sin, and the government knew that at the time, but was NEVER going to introduce the evidence in open court. (The evidence was based on intercepts of communications between the Soviet Embassy and Moscow, now known as the VENONA Intercepts).
In retrospect, it seems clear that their trials were rigged, and (although he was undeniably guily of everything, she was also undeniably less involved than he was) the sentence extreme (well, obviously) and probably not justifiable.
And THAT was without the in camera evidence that can now be used -- in clear violation of the Bill of Rights -- against terrorist suspects.
Back to terrorism: it seems to me inevitable that someone will, ultimately, get convicted unjustly. And they will have their rights to appeal impaired.
And that seems utterly un-American.