"The use of [secret CIA run] prisons is not compatible with my understanding of the rule of law," Merkel said in Berlin.Oddly, it isn't one of the five ways to "win the war on terrorism" Sen. Kerry mentioned today. The world seems to understand that this kind of treatment of people is not a winning strategy. Gitmo and the CIA prisons (Bush finally admitted they exist; he didn't, however, say where they are, or whether or not the transfers to Gitmo will empty them) are on the world's radar screen, but still not on our domestic radar screen. The Democrats still don't want to speak up for the rule of law. Why not? Chancellor Merkel shows us how simple and direct it can be.
President Bush admitted this week the CIA had run detention centers at secret overseas locations, months after reports surfaced that the intelligence agency had used Europe as a hub to shuttle suspects around for interrogation.
Merkel said even in the fight against terrorism, such means did not justify the ends and that other solutions must be found.
"(Instead) we must find answers to how we can combat terrorists effectively without calling our fundamental principles and beliefs in question," she said.
Why can't we talk about "how we can combat terrorists effectively without calling our fundamental principles and beliefs in question." Why can't this be said in plain, simple language (Sen. Kerry's "five points" are so dense and convoluted I have trouble ferreting them out and when I do, I'm not exactly moved to cry "Hear, hear!" Merkel's comments make an excellent and cogent sound-bite.). Are we determined to destroy the village in order to save it? Because I can't help but note the situation in Gitmo, and the CIA prisons, only changed because of the Hamdan decision. Which was a surprise to the White House.
And apparently a tar-baby for the Democrats. Hamdan galvanized Bush, but it still hasn't put any spine in the Democrats on this issue. What will, I wonder?