The Radical Middle - All Comments

(Light-Up) Notes From a Friday Afternoon

The Radical Middle — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:31:08 GMT

(sparkling the season of my mind) For your consideration: another curious collection of thoughts, reactions

(Light-Up) Notes From a Friday Afternoon

The Radical Middle — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:31:08 GMT

(sparkling the season of my mind) For your consideration: another curious collection of thoughts, reactions

(Light-Up) Notes From a Friday Afternoon

The Radical Middle — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:31:07 GMT

(sparkling the season of my mind) For your consideration: another curious collection of thoughts, reactions

(Light-Up) Notes From a Friday Afternoon

The Radical Middle — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:31:06 GMT

(sparkling the season of my mind) For your consideration: another curious collection of thoughts, reactions

Crank Bait Magic to Put You on to More Fish | Saltwater Fishing … | Fishing Leisure Knowledge

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:27:22 GMT

Pingback from Crank Bait Magic to Put You on to More Fish | Saltwater Fishing … | Fishing Leisure Knowledge

re: Khalid and the Kangaroo Court

Chad — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:23:50 GMT

Hassenpfeffer:

As a regular TRM reader, you know I am no fan of Attorney General Holder. I am also no fan of praising people for doing what they damned well ought to do in the first place. And yet, in the midst of an article in which both the President and a distinguished Senator seem to be auditioning for a spot in the Stalin Administration, I couldn't help but take some solace in Mr. Holder's willingness to adhere to our cherished rule of law.

re: Khalid and the Kangaroo Court

Chad — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:21:46 GMT

Corbin:

Thanks for your kind words and your legal insights. One of the advantages of having three wonderful friends who are lawyers is the ability to get expert opinions on matters far outside my limited areas of expertise.

I, too, suspect that the President's decision was more political than legal. And I think that Hassenpfeffer's theory that the decision was made easier by the almost slam-dunk certainty of a win has a lot of merit.

And I agree that, should Osama bin Laden turn up -- say, after arguing getting kicked out of his cave after arguing with his fellow dwellers about who should be doing the cleaning -- a distinction would likely arise to merit a military tribunal.

Which, for the record, I would have no problem with -- as long as it was conducted fairly and according to the rules of law. The terrorists have already won at our airports; I'd hate to think they might win -- or, more accurately, inspire us to beat ourselves -- in the courts.

re: Khalid and the Kangaroo Court

Hassenpfeffer — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:46:42 GMT

Glenn Greenwald nails it, as usual: www.salon.com/.../index.html

re: Khalid and the Kangaroo Court

Hassenpfeffer — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:08:02 GMT

The only reason DoJ decided to hold a criminal trial instead of a military tribunal is that they've concluded they can't possibly lose. Oughta be interesting if KSM's attorneys drag out the fact that he was tortured innumerable times--"fruits of a poisoned tree" and all that.

Other Gitmo residents whose cases aren't apparent slam-dunks are still being relegated to tribunals.

Chad, considering Holder's other failures to perform the most basic duties of his office, I'm not cutting him any slack over his nod to this show trial. Kangaroo court? By the time they're done here it'll be a full Australian panoply including dingos and koalas, not just kangaroos.

re: Khalid and the Kangaroo Court

Corbin — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:03:01 GMT

Well written, as always, Chad.

To label the conduct alleged against the September 11 terrorism suspects either “a crime” or “an act of war” is a conclusion and, without more, doesn’t advance the resolution of the question: whether this particular defendant should be subjected to the sort of military tribunal that our people have employed at various times since Revolutionary War times. Although such tribunals dispense with cherished rights that are engrained in our cultural DNA and are articulated in the Constitution, statutory laws, and judicial precedents, they have been deemed appropriate under certain circumstances by our Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals. I do not know whether a military tribunal here would offend settled law, but I suspect the President's decision was more political than legal.

I do know this: if Osama bin Laden were captured tomorrow, I would feel more than a little squeamish affording him the entire panoply of procedural safeguards so cherished by our jurisprudence (e.g., protections that forbid charges based on illegally obtained evidence, even though such evidence tends to prove the defendant’s guilt) since, conceivably, such protections could mandate dismissal of charges against him, and his release. That would mean no more hiding in a cave for Osama; Osama could roam Times Square and give autographs. But perhaps, a la O.J., he’d promise to spend the rest of his days looking for The Real Terrorist. My guess is that in bin Laden’s case, Messrs. Obama and Holder would announce a distinction that would justify his trial in a military tribunal.