Er, yes. It appears that the Wolfowitz piece from yesterday was a garbled translation from the German newspaper Die Weit, and the traditional game of Chinese Whispers transformed his comments quite far from his original intent. So I apologise. I am rather annoyed at The Guardian for not bothering to cross-check it with the DoD's transcript, and for pulling the link with no explanation.
But Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff told the three-judge panel that the Sixth Amendment right did not extend to questioning foreign enemy combatants held by the military overseas. Even if Moussaoui did have the right, he said, the request should be denied on national security grounds.Just so we're clear:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.Now, where does it say that national security means that the amendment doesn't apply? Yes, I know that in times of war, governments are allowed to get away with certain actions in the name of the national interest. But then, that allows things like this to happen. The law courts should not repeat the mistakes they made then.