Tag: military tribunals

Sen. Schumer’s (D, NY) unsurprising tribunal reversal.

[UPDATE]: Welcome, Instapundit readers.

Everybody’s overthinking Chuck Schumer’s (D, NY) flip-flop from his 2001 stance on military tribunals:

…those who commit acts of war against the United States, particularly those who have no color of citizenship, don’t deserve the same panoply of due process rights that American citizens receive. Should Osama bin Laden be captured alive—and I imagine most Americans hope he won’t be captured alive. But if he is, it is ludicrous to suggest he should be tried in a Federal court on Center Street in Lower Manhattan.

…to his current stance:

…when asked by the reporter why Schumer now backs criminal trials over military tribunals, Schumer says he wants to see them executed.

You see, in 2001 there was a Republican running the government, and that Republican was taking the attitude that we were going to treat the 9/11 attacks as attacks. So Schumer went along with that. But now it’s 2009, and there’s a Democrat running the government, and that Democrat is taking the attitude that we are going to treat things like 9/11 as crimes. So Schumer is going to go along with that.

Besides, there’s money in it.  After all, this is the man who justified “little, porky amendments.”

Moe Lane

Crossposted to RedState.

Obama prepares to start up military tribunals for Gitmo detainees.

(Via Just One Minute) Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia, you know:

U.S. May Revive Guantánamo Military Courts

The Obama administration is moving toward reviving the military commission system for prosecuting Guantánamo detainees, which was a target of critics during the Bush administration, including Mr. Obama himself.

[snip]

When President Obama suspended Guantánamo cases after his inauguration on Jan. 20, many participants said the military commission system appeared dead.

Mind you, other people suggested that the President’s actions back then were possibly just an attempt to give him maneuvering room while he came up with a way to keep the status quo going.  Which leads to an interesting scenario: let us say that the President decides to run military tribunals for Gitmo detainees.  Let us also say that he (with a little help from Congress*) steamrollers over current opposition to those tribunals.  Once those tribunals are done, and the existing detainees are processed… what’s stopping the President from continuing to keep Gitmo operating?  After all, did he not just ‘reform’ it?  It’d certainly be cheaper to keep an existing facility going than to shut it down and create a new one.  Fiscal responsibility is good, right?

And what would any critics plan to do about it, anyway?

Vote Republican?

Moe Lane

PS: Jim Geraghty: “All Barack Obama Statements Come With an Expiration Date. All Of Them.”

*Not to mention his Old and New Media lapdogs, many of whom would reveal themselves in the course of said steamrolling.

Crossposted to RedState.