The New York Times has a piece today (3/9/10) with the headline "Experts Urge Keeping Two Options for Terror Trials"–meaning both regular trials under the criminal justice system as well as newly established military tribunals. But who are these "experts," exactly? Well, they're "national security officials who served in the Bush administration"–though later on, "national security officials from both the Bush and Obama administrations" are also cited.
Balancing out this "expert" point of view are "conservatives," "supporters of military commissions" and "the Republican line"–all of which argue that the civilian court system is unnecessary and military tribunals should be exclusively used to try those accused of terrorism.
Conspicuously missing from this framing are those who argue that military tribunals are unconstitutional, and that even people accused of terrorism-related crimes are still entitled to the guarantees of the Bill of Rights–people like Judge Andrew Napolitano and, well, the Supreme Court. But apparently they don't meet the New York Times' criteria as "experts."
About Jim Naureckas
Are any of these "experts" quoted by name, or just anonymously? They're getting pretty comfortable with their non-attribution, aren't they?
In days of yore the "experts" studied the guts of dead animals to make predictions. Today they meditate on columns of numbers to get the same results. Similar process, just the names of the religions changed, they still worship the dead, not the living.
The military ideology is about death, not the living. The industrial complex only counts the dollar symbols.
Neither has a soul, or wants one.