Reno’s lawsuit argues in favor of trying enemy combatants in a regular court subject to the rules of evidence. That’s scary...
Indeed! Actually trying and convicting a terrorist? Why, what do you think this is... a land that has run well for more than 200 years under the rule of law? Funny how republiCONs think that the rule of law only applies when they say it does.
But that's not enough misrepresentation. Painting with broad strokes, CalCON claims that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was passed with "bipartisan support", suggesting that the votes fell along anything but party lines, and further, that as such, it must be the right thing to do. First, the votes fell accordingly:
Final Passage in the Senate Party AYE NAY ABS Republicans 53 1 1 Democrats 12 32 0 Independent 0 1 0 Total 65 34 1
Final Passage in the House Party AYE NAY ABS Republicans 218 7 5 Democrats 32 162 7 Independent 0 1 0 Total 250 170 12
* AYE = Votes for the act
* NAY = Votes against the act
* ABS = Abstentions/no votes
Second, the bipartisan support that somehow validates the bill was, of course, before the election, when the Democrats couldn't win if the republiCONs voted en bloc. So, a small number that needed and wanted to show their moderate side voted with the republiCON majority. But let's assume they genuinely felt the way that they voted; where the vote to be held this January, I think the result would be significnatly different.
And that means there was and is no "bipartisan support."
Former AG Reno is taking this highly unusual step in an effort to rein in what is looking more and more like an out-of-control Executive Branch. Frankly, it is about time somebody did. The American people spoke up about the goings-on in Washington, and there is no doubt about what they said. RepubliCONs looking for a glimmer of hope to salvage W's legacy continue to search in vain, and this is no place to put any aspiration.
It's wonderful to live in a democracy again.

No comments:
Post a Comment