|
i've seen this "argument" coming from various loons on the right, as if the only acceptable outcome for them for a "trial" was a conviction, which presumably would function to legitimate the legal black hole created by those lovely neo-fascists in the bush administration around the lovely non-category of not-quite-enemy-combattant-in-a-not-quite-war so that not only did basic due process and/or habeas corpus not apply but neither did the geneva convention.
so what the rightwing loons want is show trials. military kangaroo courts that should function to say effectively "so what about blowing off due process and the basic protections accorded prisoners of war? we got the right people."
and in that way, the rightwing loons can sleep a little better, using that fine stalinist mode of argumentation that the end justifies the means which of course they'd deplore as "communist" in any context in which it was convenient for them to deplore it. just as they don't deplore it when it's convenient for them not to.
one thing the rightwing loons cannot abide is that there were shabby, ill-considered cases often based on nothing that resulted in most of the people at gitmo being imprisoned falsely and without any recourse.
which i suppose is fine so long as it's just a bunch of brown people with funny names whose imprisonment makes white people everywhere sleep a little easier.
so the only people who seem to have been injured by this are american rightwing loons and other neo-fascists who have an interest in the overall process of trying to erase the problematic aspects of the bush period---you know, the war crimes----by trying to create the impression of necessity.
due process. what a bummer.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|