Republicans Oppose Policies of the Obama Administration; Policies They Supported Under the Bush Administration

For Republicans, Politics Trumps Everything and Everyone

One of the reasons it is so difficult to giver Republicans any credibility on their stated principles is the fact that they abandon those principles at any time that they perceive the slightest political advantage can take place by their doing so.  Democrats do some of this also, they are politicians remember, but Republicans are the ones who trumpet their ideology as a principled belief while Democrats are more likely to admit they do something for purely political reasons.

The latest example of hypocrisy among Republicans is their attitude towards trials of individuals who are arrested in the United States and charged with terrorist activities or with plotting terrorist activities.

Republican senators are pushing to include a provision in a 2012 military authorization bill that would require Qaeda suspects accused of plotting attacks and who are not American citizens to be held in military custody — even people arrested in the United States.

Now the first problem with this is that it goes against the entire tradition of the United States since it was founded, individuals charged with a crime in the United States are tried in civilian courts.  Military courts, with their lack of due process, their lack of openness and their lack of adherence to all of the protection that a civilian court provides are the stuff that totalitarian regimes practice.  Such trial are abhorrent in a free and open democracy, which is why they have not existed in the United States.

And yet a party which prides itself on adhering to the Constitution, adhering to the principles of democracy and freedom would, for what are mostly political considerations dropped its stance in favor of freedom and democracy in favor of procedures common to dictatorships.  Why, because the policy of allowing civilian trials is a position of the Obama administration.

What makes this political is that the Obama administration is following the same procedures as the Bush administration.

Mr. Bush used the criminal justice system for some cases and the military system for others, as has Mr. Obama. In recent years, the once-fierce criticism from liberals about the legitimacy of any use of military detention and tribunals has become muted. Meanwhile, Republicans, who accepted the hybrid approach under Mr. Bush, increasingly reject any use of the civilian system.

So Republican opposition to Mr. Obama’s policy is not principled, it is political.

The true Conservative position is that military trials for people arrested in America do not belong in a free and democratic nation.  Conservatism means conserve traditions of freedom, traditions that have ruled the U. S. for over two centuries.   Even the Defense Department denounces the concept of a military justice system for civilians.

In a speech last week, the Pentagon’s general counsel, Jeh C. Johnson, reinforced the warning against “overmilitarizing our approach to Al Qaeda,” saying that it would be dangerous to permit “the U.S. military to extend its powerful reach into areas traditionally reserved for civilian law enforcement in this country.”

Of course, one thing that is certain, the Republican candidate who tries to be on every side of an issue will take a similar stance on this one.

Several candidates, including Mitt Romney, have made passing comments in support of prosecuting the conspirators accused in the Sept. 11 attacks in a tribunal and criticizing Miranda warnings given to terrorism suspects at the start of an interrogation. But their views remain largely a mystery on issues like whether to ban any use of the criminal justice system, or if the administration’s policy of encouraging interrogators to delay Miranda warnings for lengthy periods is sufficient in terrorism cases.

But don’t worry Mitt, as soon as the politically advantageous position is known, we’ll let you know so you can adopt it.