Candidate Differences On Gitmo Inmates

President Bush has kept prisoners in Guantanamo for years now. He has held them without charges and even tortured them. But the one thing he has not done, is convict any of them on serious charges. An Australian was convicted by the military tribunal (read kangaroo court), but was sentenced to only a few months jail time.

Now it's obvious that we cannot go on holding hundreds of prisoners without charges. The only thing that is being accomplished is the destruction of our reputation for fairness and justice in the eyes of the rest of the civilized world. It is long past time to either convict these prisoners in a fair trial or release them.

That is just what the Democratic candidates want to do. Clinton advisor Lee Feinstein says, "While the policies at Guantanamo have hurt America's image, this is more than just an image problem. Senator Clinton believes those who have committed crimes against the United States should be brought to justice. And that justice is long overdue. Proper military commissions are established to expedite battlefield justice, but the deeply flawed military commissions set up by the Bush administration and blessed by the Republican Congress in 2006 have only delayed the administration of justice in these cases."

Senator Clinton believes the prisoners should be brought to trial in either our civilian courts or regular military courts, with all the rights that are guaranteed by those courts. Senator Obama agrees.

Obama says the "trials are too important to be held in a flawed military commission system that has failed to convict anyone of a terrorist act since the 9/11 attacks and that has been embroiled in legal challenges. As I have said in the past, I believe that our civilian courts or our traditional system of military courts martial are best able to meet this challenge and demonstrate our commitment to the rule of law."

In other words, both Clinton and Obama would reestablish the rule of law and rehabilitate our reputation among civilized nations. They understand that you cannot have one set of laws for the people you like and another set for the people you don't like. The rule of law must apply to everyone equally, or it is worthless.

But the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain, does not believe that. He wants to continue the ridiculous and unfair policies of the Bush administration. We already knew that he wouldn't mind keeping our troops in Iraq "for a hundred years", and has changed his mind about torture -- he now thinks it is OK.

But he also wants to continue Bush's military commissions. The commissions that deny the right to a lawyer, allow for secret information to be used, deny the right to cross-examine witnesses, and allow the use of info gathered by torture.

McCain's aide Randy Scheunemann says, "The last thing Senator McCain wants to see is Khalid Sheik Mohammed getting all the legal protections of someone who is arrested for a traffic violation or a criminal violation in the United States."

McCain believes that those people who he doesn't like should have less rights than his friends. Quite simply, he doesn't believe in the rule of law being equally applied to everyone. This should scare the hell out of all Americans. How do you know you won't be the next person he thinks doesn't deserve equal protection under the law?

Obama and Clinton believe in equal protection under the law. McCain doesn't. Could the choice be any clearer?