‘Inalienable Constitutional Rights in Court is Terrorism’

Posted: 27 September 2010 by Little Alex in National News, Political Science
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

A Gitmo detainee expressed support for U.S. civilian courts over military tribunals, so they must be evil.

How long before that’s the line derived from this New York Times article?:

Last year, Mr. Ghailani became the first detainee moved from Guantánamo into the civilian system, as President Obama declared his intention to try terrorism suspects in federal court whenever feasible, fueling a debate on whether the civilian or the military system was better for such cases.

The president’s effort has stalled with the controversy over moving detainees like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed into civilian court. But Mr. Ghailani has now entered the discussion, expressing strong opinions on the merits of each system and his preference for the rules of civilian justice, as part of 16 hours of discussion with a psychiatrist who evaluated him last spring and quoted him extensively in a report.

“When I was at Gitmo, they were able to use hearsay evidence,” Mr. Ghailani told the doctor. “Here, they have constitutional rights.”

In addition to his own experiences, Mr. Ghailani freely credits another, surprising source for his more than working knowledge of how the legal system operates—numerous John Grisham novels he has read and one that he has seen as a movie: A Time to Kill.

John Grisham’s like the Anwar al-Awlaki of Gitmo, I guess.

Wait, does that mean the oft-quoted-by-teabaggers Thomas Jefferson is like Osama bin Laden?

Of course, the same people who imply that supporting the supremacy of the Constitution over authoritative decrees of government agents is somehow anti-American, terrorism, evil, socialist, etc., are the same who firmly believe doctors should have gubment-guns in their face to force them from not providing a woman with the service of safely aborting her pregnancy. How Taliban of the conservadroolers…

I guess it’s literally “Don’t Tread on Me”, as in “Don’t Tread on Me, Only Them, Whoever I Declare ‘Them’ To Be, You Know, Just Because.”

About these ads
Comments
  1. nosecohn says:

    I think I agree, but…

    I read this sentence six times and I still can’t quite figure out what it means: “Of course, the same people who imply that supporting the supremacy of the Constitution over authoritative decrees of government agents firmly believe doctors should have gubment-guns in their face to force them from not providing a woman with the service of safely aborting her pregnancy.”

    Care to clarify?

    Really interesting that the prisoners read Grisham novels to learn about the U.S. legal system.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s