Obama’s “backbone” amounts to pinning bipartisan legislation on the Bush administration. What a guy. Twelve of the 32 (at the time) Democratic senators voted for the bill.

You can complain about the character of the “due process” all you like, Kathy. The real issue is whether or not the decision was well grounded in Constitutional law. It was not. The imperial Supreme Court majority, which has not yet had one of the major Constitutional checks applied to it (Congress delineating court jurisdiction) is trying to put itself in charge of U.S. conduct during wartime, in effect.

That “form of due process” allows hearsay evidence and evidence obtained through the use of torture. And the government decides how torture will be defined. Detainees are not allowed to call witnesses, refute the evidence presented against them, or even see any evidence the government does not want them to see. The Combatant Status Review Tribunals decide what evidence will be presented, how it will be presented, and what it says about the detainee’s status. There is no legitimate habeus corpus review — how can the same authority that put these detainees in Gitmo be the one to decide if the detention is legitimate? The same branch of government that put these men in Gitmo serves as legislator, judge, and jury. That is kangaroo court justice, which is no justice at all.

The Supreme Court told the Bush administration to get legislation from Congress that fixed the problems with the military commissions; it did not tell the administration to create an unconstitutional law and then bar the judiciary from reviewing it.

If I were to suggest that Obama’s positions are incoherent, will that mean that I am fearmongering and offering distractions instead of dealing with the issues?