The sight of decorated Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift on the talk shows (not just C-SPAN) voicing basic principles of fairness supplied a certain perspective that contrasted somewhat from that of Alberto Gonzales, the civilian attorney general. Compare and contrast:
What the Supreme Court said is you have the trial first, you use the procedures that are set up under international law, and then you decide whether they're a thug. You don't make the thug determination going in.
with ...
The Supreme Court decision that ruled against the Bush administration's plan to try suspects being held at Guantanamo Bay prison has "hampered our ability" to deal with terrorists, the U.S. attorney general said Saturday.
Yes, I know who I trust more. Hint: not the President's mouthpiece (great editorial cartoon in today's paper ... "Well ... I WAS the Decider"). It might also interest some people that the writer of the Hamdan ruling, Justice John Paul Stevens, is a decorated veteran of WWII, who actually supported flag burning prohibitions (statutes, at least). In fact, he was an intelligence officer. But, surely, Stevens does not know what is at stake here, right? Maybe, this is just interesting trivia. I actually think it would be useful for it to be predominantly featured in reports of the ruling.
Another person that might be of human interest is Colonel Royall, who defended the German saboteurs who landed on our shores with the orders to disrupt our civilian industry. This led to a famous case known as Ex parte Quirin, which left something to be desired, but did recognize the right of the federal courts to examine the validity of trying enemy aliens. The government pushed things along quickly, though let the justices know that only one result would be acceptable. Royall later became both secretary of the army and war. His philosophy, as is Swift's was that he wished even our enemies receive fair justice.
In fact, he was seeking civilian justice ... trusting in the same people whose shores were being attacked. Various trials of terrorists or would be terrorists underline that this is possible. But, Swift wanted even less. Yes, he thinks the federal courts can handle Hamdan's case, but his back-up was military commissions by traditional rules. This is the baseline of "due process," that is, core securities that have met the test of time. Not arbitrary rules. One caller to a C-SPAN program he was on, an injured Korean War veteran, thanked him for his service ... noting that lieutenant commanders generally do all the work.
Tell them stories, William Brennan told the journalist Nat Hentoff. There are enough stories about missteps to show why suspects require baseline protections. But, officials just doing their job -- Royall, Swift, Stevens, and all the rest, deserve notice too. Their stories seem rather notable, serving as a counter to remarks from Prof. Yoo annoyed his monarchist advice was rejected. Or, those in Congress (with a few of the usual Democrats) who want to get Yoo off the hook by expressly giving the power to the President to be a monarch.
It sometimes works better than legal discussions, concern about separation of powers, etc. Put a face to such principles. I give you but three. Swift thanked the caller, btw, but said that he was just doing his job. Sometimes, that is courage, surely in these times.