Saturday, June 14, 2008


Cross-posted at Attackerman:


Since my last posting on the SCOTUS habeas corpus ruling, I have become obsessed with opinions and arguments about it in the blogosphere, particularly in online letters to the editor.  Maybe “obsessed” isn’t the right word.  “Deeply interested” sounds more sane, huh?

Perhaps I’m deeply interested because I work in the legal field and love the legal system.  Perhaps because I saw “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington” a hundred times.  Perhaps because I can be a patriotic sucker when the right thing gets done by people appointed to do the right thing.

Brian Stuckey, from Denver writes in response to the New York Times editorial entitled “Justice 5, Brutality 4” (bottom of page).

The truth of the matter is that the Gitmo detainees are not the innocent victims of war, as some would have it. According to a Wall Street Journal editorial, at least 36 former detainees have already “returned to the fight.” Does anyone in his right mind expect that today’s ruling will lessen the potential for terrorists to rearm with the intent of killing American soldiers?

I would point Mr. Stuckey to One Drop’s elegant essay on the blog Too Sense for an in-depth counter to his points, but considering that he could not have possibly read the Constitution to come to such conclusions, it may be too long.

Let me.  I’ll be brief.  My counter, Mr. Stuckey, in order:

The Constitution requires that you prove it.  Subverting the Constitution has dire consequences.  The Constitution cannot be pimped to assuage fear.

No comments:

Post a Comment