Friday, April 21, 2006

Coast Guard officer claims Gitmo is bad law

Okay, so he didn't use the term "bad law," but I think that's what he means. At least, that's what I think he means from reading this article by Matt Apuzzo, an Associated Press Writer:
The United States needs a national security court to try enemy combatants because the tribunal system at military prisons such as Guantanamo Bay isn't working, a U.S. Coast Guard Academy professor said.

Cmdr. Glenn Sulmasy, who supported the legality and practicality of the Guantanamo detentions when they began, said the situation has become so untenable the military risks losing credibility in the international community.

"Certainly if a person at this point was found guilty and executed at the tribunal, there would be problems," said Sulmasy, a law professor who will present a paper on the subject at a Columbia Law School conference this weekend.
I'd like to read the full academic paper.

I have to say, I'm surprised. I mean, sure, I rant about this stuff all the time, but it's just my musings. Commander Sulmasy, he's playing for real. No mere punditing for him.

And, no, punditing is not a real word.


  1. It seems that the Commander was saying that it is bad policy more than bad law.

  2. I stand corrected. "Bad policy" is a better read than "bad law."