Rising Hegemon
One lawyer in the National Security Division of Holder's Justice Department, Jennifer Daskal, has written that any terrorist not charged with a crime "should be released from Guantanamo's system of indefinite detention" even though "at least some of these men may ... join the battlefield to fight U.S. soldiers and our allies another day." Should a lawyer who advocates setting terrorists free, knowing they may go on to kill Americans, have any role in setting U.S. detention policy? My hunch is that most Americans would say no.
Do other lawyers in question hold similarly radical and dangerous views?
First of all, nice loading of assumptions just before the actual quotes there a-hole. Second, how awful, an American lawyer believing in the American Constitution [Article I, Sec. 9] -- how radical and dangerous! And those known radicals on the Supreme Court have agreed with them.
Surely, only Marc Thiessen understands that "FoxNews Facts" trump the Constitution every time. So bring on the McCarthyism from the man who describes torturers as his real heroes.
[cross-posted at Firedoglake]
5 comments:
I'm proud to have never read a Marc Thiessen column.
I keep wondering how, exactly, the WaPoo came to think of Thiessen--a third-rate speechwriter--as an expert on criminal and international law and terrorism and an all-around spiffy guy they'd like to have on their editorial page.
Oh, yeah, he was recommended by Michael Gerson....
Today's wingnut-tea bag-conservative-republican singular core principal is fear and panic response. Everything else gets hung on that.
nixon could have gotten away with murder with this media, but then, he'd be a commie now.
We have to destroy all our Constitutional rights in order to save them (except the right to have any and all firearms we want at any and all times).
Post a Comment