You say: "He is right that foreign prisoners dont deserve access to domestic US courts."
Rand said: "Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution"
BIG differences there.
1) You say foreign "prisoners", Rand said foreign "terrorists"
Terrorists are guilty people. Have the prisoners at Gitmo been found guilty of a crime? They've already released dozens of prisoners after years of imprisonment because the gov't has been unable to present ANY evidence against them. With that as a precedent, why shouldn't the remaining prisoners be given the presumption of innocence? If the gov't had evidence against these men why has it taken 7+ years to bring charges against them?
2) You say these foreigners dont deserve "access to domestic US courts", Rand said they don't deserve "the protections of our Constitution"
Access to courts is a procedural issue. The Constitution is based on natural law. To say these men don't deserve Constitutional protection is tantamount to saying they're not human.
Finally, what about the admissibility of evidence obtained by torture? The Military Commissions Act is a disgrace and should be repealed immediately.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: