There has been a number of pieces, both in the news and in the blogosphere, regarding Guantanamo Bay detainees’ rights to U.S. court hearings. I applaud the Court’s decision. It has been reprehensible that any person was held without charge and without access to a court system. The Bush administration’s intentions to undo recognized law since the Magna Carta was simply breathtaking. The following neatly sums up my thoughts on the matter:
Every member of the Congress that approved the Military Commissions Act and the Detainee Treatment Act, now correctly reversed by the Court, will have the moral stain of having been a party to it besmirching their careers and their legacies forever. History will be only slightly less unforgiving to the Congress which allowed the grave abuses of the Constitution by the Bush administration than it will be to Bush himself. So no member of the Senate should be quick to follow Graham further down that path to complete ignominy. [Read the remainder of the post to understand the Graham reference - WD.]
One of the offenders is Colorado’s Ken Salazar. He voted for the legislation and then admitted he did so despite thinking it was unconstitutional. What exactly does taking an oath to defend the Constitution mean to Sen. Salazar and his colleagues that passed these awful Acts? Apparently little to nothing.
As such, I repeat my intention to support a challenger to Sen. Salazar. This vote is far from the only one he has made since 2004 that did not meet my small-d democratic values and ideals, but it is likely one of the more important ones.