The decision (or un-decision) to try the Christmas Eve bomber as a US citizen would have every right to be treated can still be an anomaly. Scott of PowerLine notes that the basis for this decision is . . . well, maybe it isn’t:
The Obama administration’s policy is indefensible. But it has not been required to defend it. It has simply served up Eric Holder to render his judgment in specific cases. The rationale supporting his judgment has yet to be articulated. It is what passes for the higher wisdom in the Obama administration, but they are awfully bashful about straightforwardly proclaiming its substance.
When the determination is made to accord rights to this person or that person who would not normally be considered to have those rights under our system of law and governance, we are owed an explanation. Further, that explanation should be rooted in the laws of our nation–which are themselves founded upon the constitution. We do sometimes get things wrong (as affirmed by the recent correction provided by the judgment in the Citizens United case). Perhaps we’ve got this entire “they are not citizens who broke laws, they are enemy combatants who are waging war against our citizens” understanding of Mr. Christmas et al wrong. If that be the case, let us hear a solid argument to that end and see if we need to change our thinking.