Permit me to laugh at David Swanson

[MFrohike]

64. Wait for what?

1. The administration, in your quoted citation, argues against codification as being unnecessary because it claims that the law is settled. It most assuredly is not. Codification is the usual method of solving the problem of unsettled law, but the administration would prefer not to use the usual method. I suspect this is due to the executive not wanting to share decision-making power with Congress. From a historical standpoint, it's terribly typical. The executive generally claims that it has no need for Congress to be involved with regulating the various incidents of the war-making powers, but it's an inherently dishonest claim. I do not mean that Obama is inherently dishonest. I am saying that claim, which has been made for decades if not centuries, is inherently dishonest. Congress has pervasive power to regulate all aspects of war, including detention. Any claims that it's not necessary sidestep the basic point that making laws is what Congress does and that it has both a right and duty to deal with this issue.

2. The bit about non-negotiability is very simple. Criminal trials in civilian courts are an absolute guarantee. Period. It is a guarantee dating back to the Civil War, which was a far more volatile time than now. The term "existential crisis" is disgustingly in vogue currently, but it is deadly accurate for describing that period of history. The Supreme Court explicitly stated that if the civilian courts are open and unimpeded, they are the proper venue for a criminal trial. As both of those standards are clearly met, the move to try detainees in military courts is facially invalid. If the Civil War and Reconstruction era military government were not sufficient to meet the standard of open and unimpeded, I fail to see how the present does.

This fight was actually in 09-10. The president, admirably, understood the clear dictate of the constitution and made moves in the correct direction. The proper venue for a trial of people involved in 9/11 is the Southern District of NY, i.e. Manhattan. NY and Congress screamed bloody murder about security costs and Obama backed down. This was unacceptable. Public hysteria is not cause for actually unconstitutionally. It may be an excuse, but it is never a reason. I know my stance on this is uncompromising, but some things really do have to be beyond the pale. The idea that people can be tried for crimes in military courts when the military courts lack the jurisdiction is disgusting political expediency. It's being done to make use of lowered evidentiary standards. I just see it as fundamentally dangerous.