WaPost Disses the Military

This morning's editorial casting faint praise on the verdicts in the Hamdan case reveals a snarky condescension toward the military. Examples of this attitude:

"The commission's decision was remarkable not because it was the first of its era but because it appeared to be measured, thoughtful and fair -- or as fair as a hopelessly flawed system could hope to produce." Hmmm.....they had a measured, thoughtful and fair proceeding? How can that be? It was administered by a bunch of knuckle-dragging right wingers (a.k.a military officers).

"The matter emerged as both vindication and defeat for the administration: vindication, in the sense that the commission in this case proved not to be the kangaroo court many critics once feared and predicted; defeat, in that even military jurors and a military judge in no way bought the administration's assertion that Mr. Hamdan was a hardened al-Qaeda operative deserving of life imprisonment." Even military jurors? Are we to expect that highly trained and remarkably well-educated military officers (among the six, I can guarantee at least as many masters degrees), who actually KNOW what the constitution says (as most usually take the time to discover what it is they swear allegiance to) would somehow be unable to reach just decisions?

The Post wanted to take shots at the way the Administration put these tribunals together...fair enough. There was no reason to take shots at the folks who carried them out.