Weekend Roundup: 01/04/13

Busy times at work, but yet I've actually been more productive as a blogger than normal. Weird. Anyway, clearing the browser windows a bit:

An exceptionally entertaining story about ex-Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), who used to represent western Maryland before being gerrymandered out, and his efforts to go off the grid. "The oddest Congressman" indeed.

Hussein Ibish to people who try to leverage the story of Jesus to favor Israeli Jews or Arab Palestinians: Stop it. You're being stupid and you don't understand how history works. Just stop it.

Omar Khadr, convicted of throwing a grenade at American soldiers during a battle in Afghanistan, now is trying to get a normal education.

A fascinating blog about a recent law grad who (after being no-offered by his sumemr firm) is now selling perfume at a department store. Sometimes, when I reflect on my job, I think "that could be me" (mostly with relief, but admittedly occasionally with wistfulness).

We're So Dead

Spencer Ackerman reminds us:

Umar Farouk “When There’s Nothing Left To Burn, You Must Set Your Crotch On Fire” Abdulmutallab is currently detained in a federal prison in Michigan. For now! In a few days he’ll use his Muslim heat vision to escape and run amok in Ann Arbor, shortly after America is brought to its knees by the force of his oratory in open federal court.

To Guantanamo he must go!

Gee, Thanks Guys

The Washington Post has an interesting article chronicling the journey of Abdallah Saleh al-Ajmi "from captive to suicide bomber". Caught in Afghanistan and alleged to be a Taliban fighter, Ajmi was held in Guantanamo Bay for four years without trial before being released without explanation to his home country of Kuwait. From there, he traveled to Iraq and killed himself while detonating a truck bomb in an Iraqi army base in Mosul, along with 13 Iraqi soldiers.

But buried in the story there was this lovely tidbit detailing one of the ways the Guantanamo Bay staff tried to prevent the inmates' lawyers from effectively representing their clients:

In subsequent meetings, said Wilner, who is Jewish, one of the Kuwaiti detainees, Fouad Mahmoud al-Rabiah, told him that one of his interrogators urged him to be wary of his attorneys because of their faith. "How could you trust Jews? Throughout history, Jews have betrayed Muslims. Don't you think your lawyers, who are Jews, will betray you?" the interrogator said, according to Rabiah.

Oh how fabulous. There's nothing I like the US government doing more than encouraging folks to hate and mistrust Jews so as to help deprive other people of effective legal representation. What a charming little story in the history of American religious tolerance.

Civil Rights Roundup: 11/29/08

Your daily dose of civil rights and related news

The White House is asking its (now totally apolitical!) Justice Department to hamper 200,000 Ohio residents from voting.

Black voters are really nervous about the integrity of this election.

A Black Brazilian immigrant gets a lesson in racism upon arriving in America.

Lawyers have finally secured access to a top-secret Guantanamo Bay camp where we hold high-ranking terrorist suspects.

The total number of hate crimes dropped slightly this year, with falls in race and religion-based attacks making up for rises in targeting based on sexual orientation and ethnicity/national origin. As far as I can tell, this means we're no longer hating based on being Black or Muslim, now the problem is being Gay or Latino.

It's also not a great time to be a Jew.

A judge in Ohio has required the state to allow the homeless to register with addresses that are not buildings.

The LA Times calls for the re-enfranchisement of ex-felons.

Anita Hill (of all people!) says racial amnesia may be the cure for our racial ills.

Nearly 20% of New York City's Asian population lives in poverty.

Criminals are targeting illegal immigrants, whom they see as easy marks because they're afraid to go to the police.

The 11th Circuit upheld sectarian prayer hosted by local governmental agencies, so long as the process was open to people of all faith backgrounds. Amazingly, this is actually an improvement over the 4th Circuit, which held that the state could host prayers and then proactively exclude those from disfavored minority faiths.

An Orthodox Catholic group is protesting Fordham University (a Jesuit school) giving an ethics award to pro-choice Justice Stephen Breyer.

Civil Rights Roundup: 10/09/08

Your daily dose of civil rights and related news

It's election time, and you know what that means: illegally keeping eligible voters off the rolls!

Polling places may not have the resources to handle the expected crush of voters this election.

The Supreme Court is examining whether employees who cooperate in discrimination and harassment cases, but are not the complaining parties themselves, are protecting via anti-retaliation provisions.

A federal appeals court has blocked the release of 17 innocent men being detained at Guantanamo, pending a hearing by that court.

Not only was the torture regime developed at Guantanamo exported to American prisons, but some officials worried that the tactics used domestically were actually "harsher" than those at our Cuban base.

High fuel prices mean its harder to run school buses. Not running buses means kids only go to their neighborhood schools. Neighborhood schools lead to school resegregation. Resegregation means students suffer.

An Iowa resident crossed into Nebraska to take advantage of the state's extremely broad "safe haven" law, abandoning her 14 year old daughter to state authorities.

A federal judge is urging immigration authorities to hold off deporting a man until his civil case against the Boston Police concludes. The man served 19 years in prison for rapes that he did not commit.

Another immigration raid, another town torn asunder.

The Cook County (Chicago) sheriff has ordered his deputies to cease evicting people, arguing that many of the evicted are renters who have done nothing wrong -- victims of landlords whose properties are being repossessed.

The Ohio Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by a death row inmate arguing he's too fat to be executed. The argument is that his girth will make it too hard to find a vein insuring the execution is done quickly and painlessly.

It's looking as if minority college enrollment is stalling out. In an amazing coincidence, affirmative action efforts have also been stalling out or proactively rolled back in recent years.

Another Virginia paper comes out in favor of re-enfranchising ex-felons.

The Department of Justice has checked -- for now -- efforts by a Georgia county's election officials to investigate the citizenship of voters whom the county had suspicions about.

Civil Rights Roundup: 10/08/08

Your daily dose of civil rights and related news

A Federal judge has ordered the release of several Chinese Muslim detainees from Guantanamo who have been cleared of links to terrorism for several years. The judge demanded that the men be admitted to the United States immediately, and ordered that immigration services not interfere with them in any way. The US filed an emergency appeal to stay the order, with White House spokeswoman Dana Perino saying that allowing admittedly innocent men wrongfully detained for years in a lawless prison might make us vulnerable to terrorism (I wish I was kidding).

Low income residents of DC are being deprived of legal services, and many don't know where to turn for help.

The anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 has made a comeback and is now shown to be leading in the polls.

As a result, gay couples are flocking to the altar ahead of the November vote on their rights.

President Bush signed into law a bill which would establish a task force to try and crack cold civil rights era cases.

The Supreme Court has a few cases being argued this term that have big implications for the future of the Exclusionary Rule (illegally obtained evidence cannot be admitted into court).

The AP has gotten its hands on documents showing that American officials knew that their detention policies had driven some detainees "nearly insane".

Gay and lesbian candidates for political office are looking at a banner year.

A Rabbi has notified police after receiving thousands of threatening emails from a campaign sponsored by PETA, protesting a ritual by which he sacrifices a chicken in order to atone for his sins.

The NAACP is criticizing hiring practices in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.

Don't Mock the Constitution

Obama hits back at Sarah Palin, who derisively attacked Obama in her convention speech for being "worried that someone won't read them their rights.":

"My position has always been clear: If you've got a terrorist, take him out," Obama said. "Anybody who was involved in 9/11, take 'em out."

But Obama, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago for more than a decade, said captured suspects deserve to file writs of habeus [sic] corpus.

Calling it "the foundation of Anglo-American law," he said the principle "says very simply: If the government grabs you, then you have the right to at least ask, 'Why was I grabbed?' And say, 'Maybe you've got the wrong person.'"

The safeguard is essential, Obama continued, "because we don't always have the right person."

"We don't always catch the right person," he said. "We may think it's Mohammed the terrorist, but it might be Mohammed the cab driver. You might think it's Barack the bomb-thrower, but it might be Barack the guy running for president."

Obama turned back to Palin's comment, although he said he was not sure whether Palin or Rudy Giuliani said it.

"The reason that you have this principle is not to be soft on terrorism. It's because that's who we are. That's what we're protecting," Obama said, his voice growing louder and the crowd rising to its feet to cheer. "Don't mock the Constitution. Don't make fun of it. Don't suggest that it's not American to abide by what the founding fathers set up. It's worked pretty well for over 200 years."

I remember Palin's line at the convention. It stuck with me, because it indicated something that had become increasingly clear about the modern GOP over the past few years. Lawless detention is now a litmus test for the party. You cannot be a member in good standing and support Habeas Corpus. You cannot be a member in good standing and support fair trials. You cannot be a member in good standing and support due process.

It is a mockery of the constitution. The American people deserve to know that.

The Next Generation of Global Leaders

Echidne snarks about it:

Then Palin went on attack, telling us how very much better John McCain was than Barack Obama, because he was a POW and was tortured. Lots of people in Guantanamo Bay will be surprised to hear that they, too, are now presidential material.

She is being sarcastic. But I genuinely worry. Being tortured, abused, harassed, or illegitimately detained by a reviled state (foreign or domestic) is, in fact, a route to political and/or social power. Senator John McCain is just one example. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is another, as is Vaclav Havel. The Sadr family in Iraq gained significant popular following after the father was killed by Saddam Hussein. It happens for the very reasons John McCain talks about: being tortured is a demonstration of loyalty and perseverance in the heart of darkness. And, whether we admit it or not, that syllogism still applies when it is our men and women who are creating the moral void.

I genuinely fear that, one of these days, a released Guantanamo, Abu Gharib, or "black site" detainee will ride to political power as a survivor of American torture. Why couldn't it happen? Standing up to America is quite popular right now in the international community. The people who we've tortured are, I suspect, not all that concerned with damaging America's image. And given our non-existent legal safeguards, it's quite possible that our theoretical Guantanamo Archipelago survivor might even be innocent of all terrorist charges.

A President of a foreign nation whose claim to fame is surviving American torture. Very little could be more damaging to our standing in the world than that image.

Hang 'em High

I read this piece by a former Guantanamo inmate who we beat, tortured, and abused. And then I want all the higher-ups in the Bush administration who authorized that treatment to be executed for their thuggish brutality and desire to make America into a lawless, authoritarian hellhole. And all the folks who sought to rationalize or defend his treatment should have to face an even worse fate.

They should have to live with themselves.

God Willing

One the things that's really got me hung up about the Hamdan trial is that he really did not seem to be one of the bad guys. He always maintained he was nothing but a menial worker, not a part of al-Qaeda's terrorist network, and has expressed (to my ears, anyway) genuine shock and sadness when he learned of the 9/11 attacks and al-Qaeda's other operations.

Ken Gude's Democracy Arsenal's post, commenting on this NYT article, really gets to the heart of that. Here's the passage from the Times that Gude quotes, an exchange between Hamdan and the military judge who presided over the trial that convicted him of war crimes:

"It was a sorry or sad thing to see innocent people killed," he said as he leaned on the defense table and gestured gently at the military tribunal here. "I personally present my apologies to them if anything what I did have caused them pain."

As he left the sparsely attended courtroom in the hilltop courtroom here, Mr. Hamdan, who at times has shown a mischievous sense of humor, raised his arms and said a good-natured "bye, bye" to the small group.

During pretrial proceedings, Mr. Hamdan, a father of two daughters in Yemen, and the judge, a career Navy lawyer, had regularly exchanged smiles and, on occasion, chats. Before he left the bench, Judge Allred, said a few parting words to the man he had gotten to know in a most unusual way.

"Mr. Hamdan," Judge Allred said, "I hope the day comes that you are able to return to your wife and daughters and your country."

"God willing," Mr. Hamdan said in the rudimentary English he picked up while in American custody.

"Insh-allah," said Judge Allred, repeating the same phrase in Arabic.

And here's Gude's comments:

Remember, this is an exchange between a man who had just been found guilty of war crimes and the judge who had presided over the trial that reached that conclusion. Hamdan appears to be genuinely remorseful about the very small role he played in al Qaeda. Allred shows real compassion for a man obviously caught up in something well beyond anything he ever intended. They then exchange the blessings of God in each other's language.

This moment could have had real power. This moment is what America is. This is the America I know. If it had occurred 5 years ago in a US court it would have sent an incredibly powerful message to the world that we are strong and we are just, and yes, Osama bin Laden murdered 3,000 Americans but he utterly failed to destroy our great country and all that it stands for.

But instead, we are arguing about whether the Pentagon will detain Hamdan indefinitely after his sentence has been completed. What a waste.

I can't help but think that the lenient sentence Hamdan received (only five months after time served) is related to the remorse he clearly feels, as well as the minor role he played in al-Qaeda's infrastructure (and, I'd hope, the fact that the trial against him was a mockery of the judicial system). But even still, that very fact makes his treatment that much more nightmarish. His case is the one that we all feared when these extra-legal detentions and procedurally deficient trials were established: someone who clearly does not deserve the label "war criminal" attached to him, but who may never see freedom because the mechanics by which he's imprisoned are so tied to America's defective political process.

I'm not making much sense; it's late, and I'm opining from the hip. But for whatever reason -- and I can't explain it -- Hamdan's case has always been one that tugged at my heartstrings. He deserved better. We deserved better. The military officers (who by all accounts were quite professional) deserved better than to be drawn into this farce.

Civil Rights Roundup: 07/01/08

Your daily dose of civil rights and related news from around the country.

Here's a convoluted story: Eli Lilly and Co. will pay $64,400 to settle a lawsuit accusing the company of withholding severance pay to force a longtime employee to withdraw a discrimination charge.

Disgusting: Blacks given "ghetto" names in SoCal yearbook

It's heading to the courts: group sues to keep anti-affirmative action measure off the Arizona ballot. The group claims the signature-gatherer's pitch "led potential signers to believe it would further the cause of civil rights, in some cases saying it would actually preserve affirmative action."

Mississippians are celebrating Voter Registration Day at the Medgar Evans library. This being Mississippi, the focus of the event is on the state's recently expanded felon disenfranchisement law.

The charge of "judicial activism" is so frequently hurled from the right that it's easy to forget that it was once conservatives whose stranglehold on the judiciary was what blocked the democratic will from being achieved. With what appears to be an Democratic wave cresting, E.J. Dionne wonders if the judges appointed by Reagan/Bush/Bush will have the same effect in the years to come.

It's official: the evidence for holding some Gitmo detainees is comparable to something out of Lewis Carroll (writer of "Alice and Wonderland"). Of note: David B. Sentelle, one of the more high-profile conservative judges in the country, was on the panel (and in the majority).

Hating America

Last year, I wrote a post asking whether or not people would have thought it morally justified for Blacks in 1856 to engage in a full-on revolution in America, violently marching on Washington and overthrowing the government. Most people, somewhat to my surprise, agreed that it would have been.

In my post yesterday on the detainee rights ruling, I noted that -- in response to reports that some released Guanatamo detainees had committed acts of violence against American troops -- it's entirely possible that they were radicalized by their time in American detention. Limitless, lawless detention mixed with torture does tend to have that effect, as countless authoritarian dictatorships can testify.

So off of that, my question for today is: what would have to happen for us to say that an individual person is justified in "hating America", to take up arms against her and seek to ruination (the same way an Iraqi might have rebelled against the Hussein regime)? It seems to me that detaining and torturing someone in an isolated, extra-legal prison with no legal proceedings or due process rights would easily cross that threshold, such that, even if I had no particularly negative feelings towards America prior to the ordeal, I'd sure have some rage at the country afterwards.

The type of activities we engaged in when we authorize these detentions and allow for this torture, these are terrorist methods. They are the sort of things that are worthy of hate. Which means that when we sanction them, we are rendering ourselves worthy of hate. It is terrifying to me to watch as so many in my country -- people who claim to be patriots -- want to make America into an object deserving of contempt and rage.

The Gitmo Effect

One of Matt Yglesias' cobloggers (Alyssa) wonders if the attention garnered by Gitmo and our other extra-legal detention centers have served to deflect attention from prison abuse at home. I had always assumed, though, that the effect ran the other way: I never really though about prison abuse in any serious fashion until the abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Gharib came to light -- and particularly their lack of significant distance from the stuff we tolerate in domestic prisons.

I suppose I might be biased in that I'm the type of liberal hippie who responds to an assertion that our prisons resemble Abu Gharib with a "oh God" rather than a "hell yeah!", but still -- I'd think the public has been moving towards the position that even really bad people -- including terrorists and criminals -- deserve certain rights, and that's due in no small part to the Bush administration's overreaches.

Don't Vacation In The Hague

Jack Balkin links to a Vanity Fair article pointing out that, even though the Military Commissions Act insulates our interrogators from domestic prosecution, this actually makes them more vulnerable to being indicted by international war crimes tribunal.

Those responsible for the interrogation of Detainee 063 face a real risk of investigation if they set foot outside the United States. Article 4 of the torture convention criminalizes “complicity” or “participation” in torture, and the same principle governs violations of Common Article 3.

It would be wrong to consider the prospect of legal jeopardy unlikely. I remember sitting in the House of Lords during the landmark Pinochet case, back in 1999—in which a prosecutor was seeking the extradition to Spain of the former Chilean head of state for torture and other international crimes—and being told by one of his key advisers that they had never expected the torture convention to lead to the former president of Chile’s loss of legal immunity. In my efforts to get to the heart of this story, and its possible consequences, I visited a judge and a prosecutor in a major European city, and guided them through all the materials pertaining to the Guantánamo case. The judge and prosecutor were particularly struck by the immunity from prosecution provided by the Military Commissions Act. “That is very stupid,” said the prosecutor, explaining that it would make it much easier for investigators outside the United States to argue that possible war crimes would never be addressed by the justice system in the home country—one of the trip wires enabling foreign courts to intervene. For some of those involved in the Guantánamo decisions, prudence may well dictate a more cautious approach to international travel. And for some the future may hold a tap on the shoulder.

Recognizing Ilya Somin's concern about allowing international law to override domestic law when the legal norms are primarily promulgated by non-democratic regimes, it is worth reminding ourselves that the rules which apply here are primarily of American origin, used to prosecute Nuremberg after WWII.

No Further Questions

Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) is part of that class of Republican Senators that is willing to talk a good game on torture, but when push comes to shove, isn't willing to do anything that will actually prevent it from happening. Still, tell me he doesn't look genuinely upset when Guantanamo Bay legal adviser Gen. Thomas Hartmann refuses to answer whether Iran waterboarding a downed U.S. airman would constitute a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Senator Graham is right that there are no further questions to be asked on this issue. It's time for some concrete action backing up Graham's strong words.

Via Liberty Street

Due Process for Bin Laden

You won't hear me complaining: I can't think of a better contrast between the rule of law America represents and the theocratic despotism Bin Laden wishes to install than to hold a massive, public trial explicating all his crimes. And now I have a major Presidential contender backing me up: Fred Thompson.

Steve Benen gets snarky on all the right-wing pundits who called for Howard Dean's head when he said the same thing in 2004. And perhaps he's right. But credit where credit is due: this is not likely to be a popular position amongst the right-wing base, and I'm not sure I see an angle for Thompson taking it. Which means I give him credit for taking the right position whilst in the line of political fire.

Not too much credit, mind you:

Later, a Thompson spokesman explained that Thompson meant "the same rules ought to apply to him as to everyone at Guantanamo Bay, and there ought to be due process thru a special military court or commission."

"For anyone to suggest that we shouldn't squeeze out every last bit of intelligence information has absolutely no understanding how to fight a long term global war on terrorism," spokesman Todd Harris said. "It would be very dangerous for the long-term security of our country to not try to milk bin Laden for every ounce of information he has."

I'm especially concerned that "milk", in this context, is fraught with implications. And the "rules" we apply to other Guantanamo detainees aren't exactly that much to shout at. But hopefully, some reforms will be pushed through, and even saying the words "due process" next to "Bin Laden" is a step up from most Republicans. It's not like I disagree that high-value intelligent assets like Bin Laden require different sort of treatment than a common-criminal--I just don't think that these differences justify chucking all of the rule of law out a ninth story window. And, in some small way, perhaps Thompson doesn't either. So, minor kudos all the same (or perhaps my expectations are too low?).

Israel for the Petitioners

Folks have started filing amicus briefs for the upcoming Guantanamo Bay habeas cases (Boumediene and Al Odah). Perhaps the most interesting one is this brief by several Israeli military experts, analogizing their own situation to the one faced by the United States. The summary of the argument is essentially: "We face a far more severe and serious terrorist threat than the US does, and yet we've never felt it necessary to eliminate due process or access to judicial review. What's your excuse?"

Via Balkinization.

Guantanamera!

The FRC's Tony Perkins has found his new favorite boy-toy in "Lt. Pete Hegseth", a "former Princeton grad" (how is one a "former" Princeton grad? Did they strip him of his diploma?) and Witherspoon Fellow who now dedicates his time to supporting the surge in Iraq and "stay the course" policies. That Perkins would fall for such a man wouldn't mean much to me, but I was intrigued by this description of his combat experience:

As a soldier, he's taken on Samarra, Baghdad, and Guantanamo, but no challenge has been greater than his mission as veteran here at home--battling the constant anti-war drone from congressional leaders and reporters.

Putting aside the idea that playing lobbyist is tougher than fighting a war--something I doubt even Hegseth would endorse and certainly a sentiment I doubt is shared amongst his peers--I'm just curious what it means to have "taken on" Guantanamo? Guantanamo is essentially an island prison bordered by the Caribbean on one side and an oppressive dictatorship on the other, where we house mentally broken detainees in sub-par facilities that we occasionally deign to let the Red Cross inspect. Hence, I can only assume that one "takes on" Guantanamo by taking down the various forms of extra-legal imprisonment and "harsh interrogation tactics" that go on there as the Bush administration works to blur the boundaries between us and Cuba as much as possible. But I don't think the FRC would celebrate that. So, I'm drawing a blank.

The Redemption

In a "highly unusual" move, The US Supreme Court reconsidered a previous decision and granted cert to hear two critical Guantanamo Bay cases, Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. U.S. Because Court rules require five votes instead of the usual four to grant cert in such situations, and due to the unusualness of the case at hand, it is looking like the Court will reverse the D.C. Circuit Court, which would be a victory for detainee rights.

Good. I don't know much about Al Odah, but Boumediene was literally kidnapped from Bosnia by US Special Forces after he was found innocent of the plot we're accusing him of (well, there's another one, but he's got a good alibi--he was in a Bosnian prison when we said he was in Afghanistan). It's time for these travesties to end. Congratulations, Justice Kennedy--you have a rare opportunity to write an opinion for the ages.

More:

The Notebook

Steve Benen

Spencer Ackerman

In This Moment

Two Out of Three Ain't Bad

Unless it's the tally of your lawyers being dismissed from your military commission trial. The ACLU Blog has the story surrounding accused Australian terrorist David Hicks' guilty plea:

No Military Commission proceeding would be complete without a dispute about counsel that nearly derails the case. (See here, and here) Monday's proceedings stuck to the script. The judge asked Hicks whether he was satisfied with his attorneys. He said he was, except that he hoped to add additional lawyers and paralegals so as to achieve "equality" with the prosecution. But precisely the opposite occurred.

First, following a somewhat arcane discussion, the judge ruled preliminarily (while claiming not to) that one of Hicks's lawyers, Rebecca Snyder, could not represent Hicks, because she had been appointed by the chief military defense counsel but was not herself on active duty. This was wrong – and the judge allowed that he might revisit the issue after briefing -- but the result was the first empty chair at Hicks's table.

Next, and far more troubling, the judge stated that Hicks's civilian defense counsel, well-known criminal defense attorney Joshua Dratel, had not submitted a letter indicating his agreement to comply with the rules and regulations of the Commissions, and therefore was not qualified to serve as counsel. Under Commission rules, a civilian lawyer must sign an agreement issued by the Secretary of Defense indicating that the lawyer agrees to abide by the Commission's regulations. The problem for the judge was that the Secretary of Defense had not yet created that agreement, and therefore Dratel could not sign it.

Instead, the judge had created his own version of the agreement – thereby, in Dratel's words, "usurping the authority of the Secretary of Defense." Dratel would have signed even that version – so long as the agreement made clear that it applied only to regulations that already existed, and not to those (and there are many) that have not yet been issued. "I cannot sign a document that provides a blank check on my ethical obligations as a lawyer," Dratel explained. In simple terms, Dratel was unwilling to pledge compliance with rules that he had not yet seen.

The judge was unpersuaded. "I find no merit in the claim that this is beyond my authority," he said. "That's sometimes what courts do, they find a way to move forward." Because Dratel refused to sign the agreement as written by the judge, he could not serve as counsel. There was a second empty chair.

Can we just reiterate that? Hicks' second lawyer was dismissed because he refused to agree to rules that hadn't been written yet. This is the system we're assured is going to provide fair and adequate process to the accused?

Via Michael Froomkin.

And now that the "guilty plea" is in, Kevin Jon Heller remarks: "I certainly hope Hicks gets credit for his five years in Gitmo. Frankly, it should count double."