Public trials will “hurt the nation”

October 11, 2007

You wanna know the problem with blogging? Coming up with nice content in a timely fashion.

 Anyway, you’ve probably seen this (check the image if the article doesn’t come up);


What is it about the office of Attorney General that attracts the most vile candidates?  Get the quotes:

“For example,” he says, “the cases involving Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, [and] certain other high-value detainees held at Guantanamo, are probably too heavily dependent on sensitive intelligence or too fraught with other issues, such as hearsay or coerced statements, to try in a conventional court.”

So – since our case is based upon such hearsay and coerced statements, well , a conventional court might throw them out.  Better have a mechanism to let us “try” them with our perhaps circumstantial evidence.  Hey, good thing that coercion is legal now, too.

“The government will find a way to identify people who are dangerous and need to be incapacitated to neutralize the threat that they represent, because the people will demand that.”

I say that .gov already finds ways to identify people it considers “dangerous” and the “people” who demand it are the .gov types themselves.

Katyal co-authored a New York Times op-ed that called for a national security court overseen by federal judges with life tenure, with a permanent defense bar of lawyers with the highest security clearances. He says the same rules would have to apply to citizen and non-citizen defendants.

 Absolutely no chance for abuse there – goodness no.

“If it works effectively and is something the nation can be proud of,” Katyal says, “then we can think about re-extending that initial authorization.”

Something to be proud of, indeed.


%d bloggers like this: