Bainbridge continues to ignore the most fundamental issue with Hamdan, and the Guantanimo environment that it addresses:
It is only with due process that anyone can begin to fairly establish who are and who aren't the so-called "Islamofascist terrorists".
The evidence is overwhelming that some of those at Gitmo are guilty of nothing, turned in by those wanting the bounty to be had. The treatment that has been enforced qualifies as the most barbaric and unjustifiable, short of summary execution. Evidently those who committed suicide a few months ago preferred death.
Bainbridge and everyone else who chooses to ignore the practical and theoretical implications of the atrocities that they seem to support is either a monster of indeterminate proportions, or they are so deluded by the propaganda of the "Terrorists myths" that their powers of reason have ceased to function.
| |
| By Steve Bainbridge Dave Hoffman posts: It is sometimes said of today’s progressives that our agenda is a defensive crouch. More energy is spent rehashing defending old decisions than imagining new victories. ... today's law students, of a certain mind, have few modern decisions that resonate like liberalism's now fifty-year-old great triumph in Brown v. Board. ... Thus, a colleague at Temple suggests to me an interesting question: is it right to think of Hamdan as this generation's Brown?
It's an interesting commentary on the academic left, which would equate a decision on the purported rights of foreign Islamofascist terrorists with an opinion that tried to undo the legacy of slavery and centuries of racial prejudice and discrimination against a class of American citizens. It's also another example of how some - and I emphasize some - folks on the academic left can come off sounding as though they're neutral, at best, on the war on terror. (To be sure, Hoffman tries to characterize Hamdan as an opinion about executive power, but that's like calling Brown a case about the powers of school boards.) | | | | |
No comments:
Post a Comment