I cannot believe the ignorance that these folks are showing here in their editorial regarding the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Rewriting the act should start with one simple step: restoring to prisoners of the war on terror the fundamental right to challenge their detention in a real court. So far, promised measures to restore habeas corpus have yet to see the light of day, and they may remain buried unless Democratic leaders make them a priority and members of both parties vote on principle, not out of fear of attack ads.

Anyone who knows anything about international law would stop reading at that point. Under international law, POWs do not have the right to access the courts of the nation holding them. Indeed, they can be held indefinitely, until the end of hostilities, and may not be tried in any civilian court -- or (ordinarily) in any military court except for certain carefully delineated offenses that constitute crimes against humanity or other violations of the laws of war.

So in fact, what the editors of the New York Times are calling for is a strict violation of the Geneva Conventions. Is it any wonder that the Gray Lady are no longer particularly relevant in the public discourse.

Posted by: Greg at 09:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 1 kb.