Remember this quote? “If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.”

It is all about redistibution of wealth and shreading the Constitution. This, along with all the other massive intrusions into the private sector, is intended to destroy American democracy and usher in American communism.

All these terrorists pleaded guilty to a military tribunal less than a year ago, and they said they wanted to be executed. Obama shouldn’t have interfered with that.

— you are implying that the Obama wrecking crew doesn’t know what they are doing. Please, don’t be so naive. The Obama admin knows precisely what they are doing. Their attempt HERE is to change American jurisprudence. And they will succeed (with the help of their black robes). Its just another feather in their cap, just another step towards the destruction of America. (Or as Saul Alinsky would say, “the rebuilding of America”.)

Folks, its time to wake up.

Almost forgot, but I’m curious about your post which posited the notion that Obama might resign before being defeated in 2012…this is an interesting idea and in keeping with his pathological narcissism. I hope you will expand on the idea.

Military Commissions were designed for war criminals, we are at war, “improvements” were signed into law just last month, and Holder will use them to prosecute 5 others; why won’t President Obama use them on the worst of the worst?

I’m skeptical that real life will work out like a Dick Wolf fantasy, but, hey, maybe Holder’s people can pull it off. The whole thing still stinks.

“In civil life, we do not wish to see individuals sacrificed to the greater mission of the state. The necessary ambiguities of warfare need to stay within the military.” – Shannon Love

Well put.

1. KSM’s team already knows that most of the evidence produced against him will be inadmissible (unless Shannon’s conjecture is correct, and the court seriously bends the Constitution to admit it). Therefore, it is to their advantage to proceed quickly, before the prosecution has had a chance to meticulously organize the government’s case. Presumably, a disorganized prosecution, repeatedly introducing evidence and testimony which is subsequently excluded, would result in acquittal, and maybe even a directed verdict.

2. If one is willing to assume that a Republican President will be inaugurated in January 2013, it is very much to KSM’s advantage that the trial conclude while Obama is still President. Obama’s JD has clearly communicated their weaknesses to KSM’s team. The next President might well be able to ram through a Constitutional amendment putting KSM’s case back in the hands of a military tribunal that will dispose of the matter (and KSM himself) very quickly, and without any of the publicity KSM seeks from an open-court trial.

OTOH, i dont necessarily agree with the decision to move these trials to the civilian courts either, because it could very well result in martial law: the repugs might easily get enough unearned political capital out of this to seize the congress in 2010 along with the POTUS in 2012; and if a cheney (romney,giuliani,etc) presidency isnt martial law, then i dont know what is.

There is a big difference between a technique that works in the military, which is a subsystem of the greater society and a technique that will work in the larger system. The subsystem has the greater system to regulate it while the full system must regulate itself.

There is also a big difference between courts martial that try offenses against uniformed soldiers and ones that try offenses against illegal combatants. Because there are no criminal procedures nor checks and balances on the battlefield, such courts must rely on their trust in the soldiers who captured and brought forth the accused. Only the honesty, integrity and sense of honor of the officers of the court provide any protection for accused. Institutionally and procedurally they are kangaroo courts.

More than any part of any human society, the military is driven by necessity. The military does what it must when it has to. It cannot sacrifice its mission for the good of individuals. It cannot let 10 illegal combatants free rather than unjustly imprison one non-combatent. The mission comes first and individuals are sacrificed to that cause.

In civil life, we do not wish to see individuals sacrificed to the greater mission of the state. The necessary ambiguities of warfare need to stay within the military.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a prisoner in U.S. custody for alleged acts of terrorism, including mass murder of civilians. He was arrested in 2003. He was charged on February 11, 2008, with war crimes and murder by a U.S. military commission.

Defendants in criminal cases have the right to a speedy trial. The U.S. Supreme Court laid down a four-part ad hoc balancing test for determining whether the defendant’s speedy trial right has been violated in the case of Barker v. Wingo:

Length of Delay: A delay of a year or more from the date on which the speedy trial right “attaches” (the date of arrest or indictment, whichever first occurs) was termed “presumptively prejudicial”, but the Court has never explicitly ruled that any absolute time limit applies.

Reason for the delay: The prosecution may not excessively delay the trial for its own advantage, but a trial may be delayed to secure the presence of an absent witness or other practical considerations.

Time and manner in which the defendant has asserted his right: If a defendant agrees to the delay when it works to his own benefit, he cannot later claim that he has been unduly delayed.

Degree of prejudice to the defendant which the delay has caused.

In Strunk v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that if the reviewing court finds that a defendant’s right to a speedy trial was violated, then the indictment must be dismissed and/or the conviction overturned. The Court has held that, since the delayed trial itself is the state action which violates the defendant’s rights, no other remedy would be appropriate. Thus, a reversal or dismissal of a criminal case on speedy trial grounds means that no further prosecution for the alleged offense can take place.

In Boumediene v. Bush, the Supreme Court guaranteed detainees the Constitutional right of habeas corpus. Now, by extension, anything is possible…including the dismissal of all charges.

Nice work, Obama! Nice work, Holder!

“Democrats have insisted, in the name of equality, on giving foreign terrorists attacking us all the Constitutional rights afforded American citizens at home. So, when the Democrats are faced with an overwhelming demand to cease giving terrorists Constitutional rights, to better protect ourselves at home from Islamic terrorism at home, the Democrats will offer the folloiwng compromise:

All Americans should give up their Constitutional rights too so terrorists will be treated equally.”

Jim Taranto said about the same thing in last Friday’s Best of the Web.

With close experience in both systems I can say that the military system is not only the most likely to provide justice, but the most likely to provide protection for the innocent. Having multiple well educated and well qualified board members with a whole lot of common sense able to question the witnesses (through written questions read by the judge) permits the jury itself to address the deficiencies in performance of both the prosecution and the defense – to get answers to the kwy questions necessary for the jury to come to a considered decision – and to get to the end goal of justice.

I have long been retired – and I have jury duty coming up in just a few weeks. It will be another frustrating time of watching two lawyers performing in court – the decision left to how skilled each is at the arcane theatrics of jurisprudence. It shouldn’t be that way. The jurors should be allowed to ask for the facts that they truly need to make a considered decision, not be held hostage to the malpractice of the lawyers of both prosecution and defense. Justice deserves better.