There was once a President who had a policy that terrorists fighting against the US did not have any claim to the protections of the US Constitution; a policy that those terrorists should be held at Gitmo; that those terrorists should be tried by military tribunals; and that those military tribunals should be held at Gitmo.
Then there was a candidate for President who campaigned on the policy that the terrorists were entitled to the same Constitutional protections as US citizens; that the terrorists should not be held at Gitmo and that it should be closed; that the terrorists should be tried in civil courts; and those civil trials should be held in major population centers.
Was the first position right all along? What is different now?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment