Specter’s already introduced a bill that would authorize military tribunals and set due process guidelines. Hearings are scheduled for July 11. Frist has a bill of his own coming next week. And John Warner and Carl Levin say the Armed Services Committee will hold hearings on procedural requirements in hopes of passing something in September. Full speed ahead.
Sounds like the debate will center on whether the Gitmo gang should be entitled to full courts-martial or some lesser specie of military hearing. The difference is the extent to which the government can present classified info as evidence without letting the defendant see it. Pelosi and Feingold doubtless will demand the full court-martial enchilada, which is fine by me: if they want to argue that terrorists are entitled to the same procedural benefits as U.S. soldiers with a midterm election coming up, so much the better.
Now, you call it — which is the quote of the day? Candidate #1, from Agence France Presse. Adjectives are fun:
The Washington Post and The New York Times on Friday hailed the decision as “a victory for law,” while the ultraconservative Washington Times condemned it as a dangerous restriction of presidential authority.
The Post in particular celebrates the implications of the Geneva Conventions for “dignitary” offenses.
Candidate #2, from the AP:
“The Supreme Court must be neutral and must respect human rights. They must give justice,” Abdul Salam Zaeef said in the Afghan capital, Kabul.
Zaeef was detained at Gitmo for four years — after serving as the Taliban’s ambassador to Pakistan.