Judgment at Guantanamo: Difference between revisions

From Discourse DB
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Legislation now has name)
(Fixed)
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{item
{{Item
|author=David B. Rivkin Jr.
|author=David B. Rivkin Jr., Lee A. Casey
|author2=Lee A. Casey
|source=The Wall Street Journal
|source=The Wall Street Journal
|date=September 9, 2006
|date=September 9, 2006
Line 7: Line 6:
|quote="In this regard, the president's military commissions bill carefully balances the key relevant policy imperatives -- ensuring a fair trial without undermining national security -- and yet gives unlawful enemy combatants more due process than they've ever received in history. It should be promptly enacted."
|quote="In this regard, the president's military commissions bill carefully balances the key relevant policy imperatives -- ensuring a fair trial without undermining national security -- and yet gives unlawful enemy combatants more due process than they've ever received in history. It should be promptly enacted."
}}
}}
 
{{Opinion|Military Commissions Act of 2006|Act should be passed|for}}
{{opinion|Military Commissions Act of 2006|Act should be passed|for}}

Latest revision as of 12:14, March 30, 2009

This is an opinion item.

Author(s) David B. Rivkin Jr., Lee A. Casey
Source The Wall Street Journal
Date September 9, 2006
URL http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115775899800658262.html
Quote
Quotes-start.png "In this regard, the president's military commissions bill carefully balances the key relevant policy imperatives -- ensuring a fair trial without undermining national security -- and yet gives unlawful enemy combatants more due process than they've ever received in history. It should be promptly enacted." Quotes-end.png


Add or change this opinion item's references


This item argues for the position Act should be passed on the topic Military Commissions Act of 2006.