The Rule of Law, not the Rule of Bush

ILLUSTRATED: There needs to be a process for terror suspects being held out of a war zone.
Expect the GOP to make hay out of the Supreme Court's ruling that terrorism detainees are entitled to regularized rules of evidence, and rules of procedure. I suspect they will roll out a draconian set of rules in tht hope that intellectually honest Democrats vote against it, thereby opening us up to charges that we are soft on terrorism. The same gambit as in 2002 with the issue of protections for the professional workers in the new Homeland Security Department, i.e. Max Cleland.

Here is what to say: "The Supreme Court ruled that Bush cannot set up Kangaroo Courts for anyone he claims is a terrorist. These courts must have rules set by Congress, and a process reviewable by the judicial branch. We understand the special need for security, but a legal process strengthen's America's moral standing which is our biggest asset."

Reponse to GOP attck that we are unrealistic about war: Military tribunals are for emergency situations when there is no time or option to try suspects. The fact that these detainees have been held so long is all the more reason that there should be a trial, since there is obviously no rush...The Supreme Court is NOT telling the president how to conduct a war. Once prisoners are outside of a war zone, the Constitution mandates that suspects be given some type of process set by Congress and reviewable by courts. That's the American way, and that's the best way.