Robert Bork supports military tribunals. Not surprising. But much is being made of this comment toward the bottom of the article: “If there is a problem with Bush’s order, it is the exemption of U.S. citizens from trials before military tribunals.” Much as I’m among those who love to hate Bork, he’s being taken out of context. For someone who rationalizes the tribunals for foreign terrorists, it is not surprising that he also says he supports them for Americans for the same reasons (safeguarding sensitive intelligence data, the risk of them going free if given a fair enough trial, etc.); but he’s talking about American terrorists! It seems to me the Left can’t have it both ways; if we complain that the reactionaries are selective in the terrorists they’re after, and not including in the scope of their proposed repression so-called domestic terrorists (which, these days, comes mostly from the American Right), we can’t also complain about Bork’s equanimity here…