There have been a lot of pretty silly editorials by the New York Times, but the latest is one of the most laughable I've seen in a long time. And this is from the editorial board, not some clown like Frank Rich.
We do not envy President Obama as he tries to undo George W. Bush’s illegal and shameful detainee policy.Except it wasn't illegal or shameful. And Obama is basically maintaining it. Other than that, it's a great characterization.
But that does not change the fact that Mr. Obama was wrong when he flip-flopped and decided to resist orders by two federal courts to release the photos.That's an opinion, not a fact. For people more concerned with U.S. security, Obama's decision was the correct one. There was no good reason to release more pictures of abuses. After a section about Obama's proposed changes to military tribunals, we come to one of the most idiotic parts of the Times argument
The problem is that these tribunals, unlike traditional ones, did not just cover prisoners captured on the battlefield. They covered anyone whom Mr. Bush declared beyond the reach of law with the preposterous claim that the whole world is now a field of battle.The editorial board of the Times is basically declaring that they don't have the slightest idea about terrorism, or what a fight against Al Qaeda entails. There is no "battlefield" in most cases. Al Qaeda isn't an army. It's a bunch of non-state terrorists. The fact that a terrorist is captured in some other circumstances than a battle doesn't make him an ordinary criminal, as the Times seems to think.
Since the Times is apparently so utterly clueless about the practical matters involved in fighting a non-state terrorist group, it's no surprise that their ideas are so ridiculous. The entire article is nothing but whining and sniveling about the supposed evils of Bush, and how terrorists need to be tried in civilian court. You can tell that they are horrified that their beloved Obama isn't living up to expectations. Where are the show trials? Where are the rights for terrorists like the poor oppressed Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? Obama is actually worrying about national security, and making practical decisions instead of being a BDS-infected nutcase. And the Times can't have that.