In an ordinary criminal case, there are strict standards for maintaining the chain of custody of evidence; witnesses must be exposed to the defendant; and the law enforcement officers who investigated the case and effected the arrest must testify. Those conditions are impossible to meet on the battlefield. Indeed, in many cases, the soldiers who took the detainees prisoner, are now dead. Moreover, to the extent some detainees were apprehended on the word of Afghan civilians, to expose them on the witness stand would be tantamount to slaughtering their entire families (since that’s how Al Queda and the Taliban play the game).

The way I see it, if someone wants the advantages of being a stateless, army-less combatant, one has to take the disadvantages. In these cases, it is detention without trial. The mistake was accepting their surrender on the battlefield in the first instance — since they are outside of international law, their surrender was ineffectual, and they should have all died on the battlefield, and gone on to their 72 under-aged virgins.

And as for the rule of law, anyone who seriously examined Obama could not be surprised by his subverting it to political expediency. This is a man steeped in the teachings of Saul Alinsky, the radical leftist who inspired ACORN, and who believed in acquiring and using political power to plunder, law be damned. If you don’t believe me, ask a “secured” creditor in Chrysler or General Motors. Now that he has seen some push-back on the Guantanamo issue, he has backed off, sensing that the risk no longer merits the reward. But at least he sounds smooth while dispatching yet another campaign promise.

The Obama Deception

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=7886780711843120756&ei=OeDgSfSYG46y-AbknsW0DQ&q=the+obama+deception&hl=en

He knows what it takes to defend his country.

Whilst I have some considerable regard for Dr Rice, and if the report is to be believed, considerable regard for her bravery, I cannot see how volunteering to undergo something proves it is not torture?

I’m no expert, but I reckon I could waterboard someone for less than 24 hours and make them confess, yes indeed it IS torture.

Time is quickly running away which is why Brown is holding out.

Sometimes it produces difficult consequences but the alternatives are always worse. If there is no evidence to prosecute these people they should be freed, otherwise they should be tried properly in a properly constituted court.

I have always thought that at some point Obama will have to take on Congress and face them down (particularly his own party). This seems to be the issue but does the President have the force of character required?