Graham Argues For Military Trials For Detainees
by TChris
Senator Lindsey Graham wants to use the military court-martial model to try detainees, but other Republicans "say it could cripple the government's ability to protect the nation by giving detainees too many rights." Too many rights? Which ones are superfluous? The right to know what you're accused of doing? The right to see the evidence? The right to attend the trial and to confront the accuser?
While "some other Republicans argue that terrorists do not deserve legal or human rights," those Republicans apparently lack an understanding of the difference between a terrorist and an accused terrorist. Putting aside the rights that may apply to someone convicted of an act of terrorism in a fair and meaningful trial, can these Republicans explain why the presumption of innocence shouldn't apply to alleged terrorists? Even if the administration were competent, why would we trust the government to make error-free accusations without insisting that those accusations be proved?
As Graham points out, fair trials benefit the country, not just alleged terrorists.
< Tuesday Open Thread | Tom DeLay's Cash Flow Problems > |