By popular demand, although I’m not sure why. Both sides are awful. True to form from the immigration debate, Spitty’s on his high horse moralizing for all he’s worth without a care in the world about the practical effect of the new policy. Kelly, meanwhile, is hung up on the jurisdictional argument of the detentions being located in Cuba, even though the jihadis are in U.S. custody on a U.S. base located on land leased in perpetuity (read: owned and occupied) to the U.S. Read Ed’s post and Mark Levin’s take for the substantive objections to the ruling. If unlawful combatants are entitled to this sort of protection, what are lawful combatants, i.e. prisoners of war, entitled to? And if the former, perversely, have more robust rights than the latter, what incentive does that create?

Link: sevenload.com