In case you haven't noticed, Obama has had problems with many liberals because he is actually one of the more hawkish Democrats. He opposed the invasion of Iraq, but stated from the beginning of his campaign that we couldn't just pull out. He favored escalation in Afghanistan and expansion of efforts to attack the enemy even when that meant sending more and more drones across the border (as Don notes below). He has carried through on both fronts. I don't think killing Islamic terrorists gives him any sleepless nights.
I don't think many court observers have ever suggested that public defenders are providing Cadillac defenses. I also have no problems with combatant fatalities in the field. That is what war is about. However, even in war there are limits. We, as a nation, have agreed to certain rules of war, codified in the Geneva Conventions which are ratified treaties and carry the force of law. We have been torn by the fact that our system offers two ways of handling captives: we can handle them in accordance with the rule of war, or we can handle them in accordance with national and international law. If we choose to handle them without regard to law, we are lawless. It's hard to reconcile that with our claim to be a nation of laws.
Kudos to the jury. I would love to see terrorists use their moment in the spotlight, like Roeder, to put forward their justifiable homicide defense, and have our juries listen respectfully and then convict them.











Reply With Quote





