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.
"What I'm trying to do with my time in the Senate during this whole debate we're having is to remind the Senate that the rules we set up speak more about us than it does the enemy," Mr. Graham said in an interview. "The enemy has no rules. They don't give people trials, they summarily execute them and they're brutal, inhuman creatures. But when we capture one of them, what we do is about us, not about them.
"Do they deserve, the bad ones, all the rights that are afforded? No. But are we required to do it because of what we believe? Yes."
| < Tuesday Open Thread | Tom DeLay's Cash Flow Problems > |
