by Afua Hirsch
Afua Hirsch is the Guardian's legal affairs correspondent. She has practiced at the bar in criminal defence and public law and teaches constitutional and human rights law.=====
When people warned of unrealistically high expectations of what Barack Obama would do in office, this is exactly what they meant.
Yes, Obama talked tough on the military commission system during his election campaign, describing it at one point as "an enormous failure". And yes, one of the most celebrated parts of his inaugural speech was the much thirsted for assurance that under his leadership the US would "reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals". Few will forget the acknowledgment too that "our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint".
But now the Obama administration has moved from soaring rhetoric, it is trying to work out what to do with those problematic detainees it inherited from the "war on terror". Legal and constitutional ping pong has been played out for over seven years on the rights of these men. Are they protected by the Geneva conventions as prisoners of war? Are they entitled to American constitutional rights as "enemy combatants" detained in foreign jurisdictions? Are they protected by well-established legal principles guaranteeing trial by civilian courts, or by a "neutral" decision maker, and do military tribunals fulfil either of these requirements?...
But as a lawyer he knows well that the numbers are completely beside the point. The fairness of a country's legal system rests on the single unjust conviction, not the many fair ones. Obama captured the collective imagination by stating his commitment to fairness in unequivocal and compelling terms.
The problem is that justice does not just have to be done – it also has to be seen to be done. And now everyone is looking.http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/may/15/obama-military-trials