October 1, 2006


No justice in our new terrorism policy (Danny Westneat, 10/01/06, Seattle Times)

Three months ago, when the U.S. Supreme Court said the way we're prosecuting terrorism suspects is illegal, the Seattle lawyers who helped bring that case were jubilant.

To them, the ruling meant no less than that we are still a civilized country, willing to give a fair trial to anyone — even the enemy. "It reaffirms your faith in the system," Joe McMillan, one of four Perkins Coie attorneys who worked on the case, said then.

Last week, Congress responded to that Supreme Court ruling. It passed what has come to be called a "compromise" plan for detaining and trying suspected terrorists.

So I called up one of the local attorneys to see what he thought of it. I figured he'd say that Congress had at least marginally improved the system of closed tribunals and unlimited detentions President Bush had installed, unilaterally, back in 2001.

Nope. It's even more draconian, says Charles Sipos of Perkins Coie, who challenged the tribunals on behalf of Osama bin Laden's former driver.

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 1, 2006 10:04 AM
Comments for this post are closed.