Photo from AOL
For all of their bluster about strict Constitutional conservatism, the far-right has been acting very strangely (well, stranger than normal). They think it's standard American operating procedure for anyone who might look like they are an illegal immigrant (but they won't profile 'em!) to carry identification papers on them at all times. They think that the unwarranted wire-tapping of phones is nifty (as long as a Republican is in the White House). And now they think that if you try to blow something up you should not be Mirandized, you should not get a trial, and you should be stripped of your citizenship (if you had it in the first place).
That attitude is very strange to me, and is also strange to Steven Weber, actor and blogger (and a damned site better than me). He's got a great post up on the subject, and I couldn't agree more.
Can anybody tell me why, when it comes to accused terrorists, military tribunals are preferable to normal judicial proceedings in a civil court of law?
Is it because they don't want those fancy pants New York lawyers being all wise-cracky during a "You can't handle the truth!" moment?
Is it because the three military judges are allowed to smash the defendant on his turban with their gavels? . . .
Read more at: Huffington Post