Legal Commentary

Obama v. McCain on Military Tribunals

By TChris

As this TalkLeft post explains, Salim Hamdan did not receive a fair trial before the military tribunal he faced at Guantanamo.

The judge allowed secret testimony and hearsay evidence. Hamdan was not judged by a jury of his peers and he received no Miranda warning about his rights. Hamdan's attorneys said interrogations at the center of the government's case were tainted by coercive tactics, including sleep deprivation and solitary confinement.

John McCain applauded the process, claiming it "demonstrated that military commissions can effectively bring very dangerous terrorists to justice." That's not surprising, given McCain's support for the obnoxious law that created the military tribunals.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, recognized that the struggle to bring Hamdan to trial "underscores the dangerous flaws in the administration's legal framework." Obama rejects McCain's willingness to detain people for years before giving them an unfair hearing, and reminds us that the path to justice is enshrined in our Constitution: [more...]

"It's time to better protect the American people and our values by bringing swift and sure justice to terrorists through our courts and our Uniform Code of Military Justice." ...

Obama supports shutting down the Guantanamo prison and says U.S. civilian courts and the traditional military courts-martial system can handle detainee trials.

If American constitutional values are important to you, the difference between Obama and McCain is clear.

Full post as published by TalkLeft on August 06, 2008 (boomark / email).