I don't understand Lithwick's conclusions, as usual. Two judges dismiss charges for failing to state a claim, and suddenly this is a rebellion against being lock-step Bushies?
Lithwick assumes that merely because one is pro stopping Terror, one is obviously predisposed to completely ignoring the rule of law. Fine, if your conclusion is that military tribunals for unlawful enemy combatants are prima facie unlawful, go for it. But if you believe, as many public international scholars and arguably our President, do, that these trials are lawful, and can guarantee an adequate trial, then there is no revolt by these judges. They dismissed poorly drafted charges. End of story. They did their job, as everyone expects them to.
It seems unlikely to me that Lithwick, faced with a report that a Judge had dismissed charges against a drug pusher would conclude that this drug had abandoned the drug war and was miffed that he was sitting in judgment of a mere street corner salesman rather than Pablo Escobar. She'd probably just conclude that the charges were poorly drafted.
