Hearing Impairment

|

A two-part series in The New York Times explains how it is that the Bush administration's military tribunals, considered so urgent three years ago that there was no time to consult with Congress (or even the State Department), still have not passed judgment on a single accused terrorist.

Advertisement

NEXT: Poll Positions, Rosie the Unriveter

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Assuming Reason excludes foreign nationals captured in Afghanistan from US constitutional protection, then we’re talking about cases like Johnny Jihadi from Marin County.

    Isn’t it a good thing (habeas corpus aside) from the civ. libertarian perspective than no one has yet been tried by a mil. trib.?

  2. I happened to hear Ashrcroft’s ex-second in command/current general counsel of Pepsi speak on Friday. He said that the reason they haven’t used the tribunals, and tried 250 accused terrorists in regular criminal court, is because they are doing their best to respect constitutional rights.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.