I’m ashamed that you consider yourself a libertarian, too.

I think if we decide to afford these people access to our court system, then they should have a right to a fair, speedy trial with access to good lawyers. That being said. We shouldn’t think the lawyers are doing God’s work for defending them. It’s not like they are defending Cory Maye or something. It’s something that has to be done and done properly. It’s ugly work.

This thing is screwed up on many levels. There were things that were wrongly done by the last administration. Most of which were noted by bbartlog. See his post for some of my concerns.

I’m assuming they will do that; using his own confessions would be rather ludicrous. The broader question of what remedy is appropriate if a defendant’s rights have been violated remains, however. Merely excluding evidence is not always adequate.

‘You are saying that you think he should not be found guilty because he was tortured.’

I said nothing of the sort. My point is that the trial is a sham; I don’t want the American legal system corrupted in this way. I might add that rights violations would result in a dismissal of charges or declaration of a mistrial, not a ‘not guilty’ finding.

‘Bonus points for explaining why the head of the executive branch opining that he thinks the defendant will be convicted should be a problem.’

This isn’t such a big deal; however, if I were a defense lawyer I would certainly claim difficulties in the construction of an impartial jury due to beliefs created by such statements. Even if there is a general presumption that conviction will take place (such as you describe), the explicit mention of it in a particular case could be construed as prejudicial.

Whether the person has a right to be so tried is different. A combatant captured on the battlefield and who is not brought onto U.S. territory does not have the same rights as one who is brought onto U.S. territory. Guantanamo was and is an attempt to avoid that, as the U.S. government cynically argues that Guantanamo does not qualify as U.S. territory for technical reasons. A more sensible approach, that the U.S. Supreme Court appears to be recognizing is whether the detainee is subject to the control of someone subject to U.S. jurisdiction (e.g., a military officer).

Changing the inquiry to actual control versus the bare territorial inquiry is a better rule that I hope the Supreme Court adopts in all cases.

@bbartlog: Let’s say that KSM were tortured. Assume also that we have independent evidence of his crimes that we can use to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed those crimes. All information gained through torture is excluded from the trial. You are saying that you think he should not be found guilty because he was tortured. Why is that the logical outcome? It seems your idea of a legal system has little room for actual guilt as a reason for conviction.

Bonus points for explaining why the head of the executive branch opining that he thinks the defendant will be convicted should be a problem. Of course he believes that. If he didn’t, there would be no charges. Remember, prosecutors are executive branch officials, not judicial branch officials.

For Shearman & Sterling, they have a LOT of business in the middle east. Without divulging any confidential information, I can say that I used to work there as an associate, and that their defense of the terrorists has less to do with ideology, and a LOT to do with money and being bankrolled by their Arab clients. It also gains them a lot of goodwill in the middle east, allowing them to serve as deal counsel on a number of large projects in Dubai and other locations. (Again, I’m not really divulging anything confidential, as this info can probably be found buried in WSJ news archives).

Money talks. This has nothing to do with ideology for many, and everything to do with their clients and who’s paying.

I will give you credit for not following the other morons who speak on this subject and use the word “citizen” as though non-citizens ever or have ever gotten different process when being prosecuted for crimes (Illegal alien!? Oh well then we only have to prove you guilty by a preponderence of evidence, and no lawyer for you!).

yes. yes.

and you’re begging the question by saying “we are affording constitutional rights to terrorists captured on a battlefield in foreign countries.” the whole issue is whether or not the individual is a terrorist, so you can’t use “the person is a terrorist” as proof they should not have lawyers, juries or any other rights.

unless, of course, you want to have a two track justice system. one with constitutional rights for people we think might be terrorists and one without rights for people we “know” are terrorists. but then how do you decide which track to put any particular person in? surely we would need some threshold of evidence and proof. and surely the person should have the right to challenge it. and a lawyer to help. and, oh wait, we’re be right back where we started.

Will someone please start a Fight Club style group in DC that finds assholes like McCarthy on street and give them wedgies or something?

These authoritarians need to be embarrassed and ridiculed.