"Our aim, to swat liars and leeches, hypocrites & humbugs, demagogs & dastards"
-- The Yellow Jacket
Moravian Falls, N.C., 1919
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Where there's a Will ...
Still fretting over the Supreme Court's habeas corpus ruling, I sometimes wonder if all conservatives have taken leave of their senses. But no, not all.
While he hasn't written about it on NRO, John Derbyshire has weighed in on the same side as George Will in his weekly National Review podcast -- Radio Derb.
He isn't so much supportive of the decision as he is critical of the administration for getting itself into this situation in the first place, asking, "what was your plan, to leave them there forever?" Hard to argue with that one.
He also makes a plea that the next time we insist on going to war, we might consider going to war with a country -- where we have prisoners of war, prisoner exchanges and repatriation after cessation of hostilities, etc. Hard to argue with that desire either, although do we really have a choice of going to war with a country when the opponent is an international organization that is neither exactly purely military nor criminal?
I would also note that the merits of George Will's reasonably compelling case for the SCOTUS decision depend in no small part on his assumption that this Supreme Court decision will be interpreted by lower courts and by itself both narrowly and with restraint.
The doubts that most of us have about the judiciary being willing to exercise self-restraint plays no small role, of course, in why we assume that this case will cause more trouble than it will solve, and that the worst is yet to come on the subject of the judiciary inserting itself into military matters.
I hope Will is right and that the skeptics are wrong.
1 comment:
While he hasn't written about it on NRO, John Derbyshire has weighed in on the same side as George Will in his weekly National Review podcast -- Radio Derb.
He isn't so much supportive of the decision as he is critical of the administration for getting itself into this situation in the first place, asking, "what was your plan, to leave them there forever?" Hard to argue with that one.
He also makes a plea that the next time we insist on going to war, we might consider going to war with a country -- where we have prisoners of war, prisoner exchanges and repatriation after cessation of hostilities, etc. Hard to argue with that desire either, although do we really have a choice of going to war with a country when the opponent is an international organization that is neither exactly purely military nor criminal?
I would also note that the merits of George Will's reasonably compelling case for the SCOTUS decision depend in no small part on his assumption that this Supreme Court decision will be interpreted by lower courts and by itself both narrowly and with restraint.
The doubts that most of us have about the judiciary being willing to exercise self-restraint plays no small role, of course, in why we assume that this case will cause more trouble than it will solve, and that the worst is yet to come on the subject of the judiciary inserting itself into military matters.
I hope Will is right and that the skeptics are wrong.
Post a Comment