Much has been made of late of the decision by the O-man's administration to try the u-trou bomber in the civilian, rather than military legal system.
Without going into my feelings about the O-man's national security agenda (if you don't know how I feel about it, go back and read a few of my previous postings), this decision begs analysis from a totally different perspective.
Civilian court systems play by a very different set of rules than do military courts.
Procedures, evidence rules, plea definitions, and most other attributes of the civilian court system, are very, very different when applied in a military context.
Most civilians are at least passingly familiar with the rules and processes of civilian courts, if only from the various court TV programs shown on cable for the past few years.
And, the most basic premise of the civilian court system is "innocent until proven guilty".
Military courts typically have the same basic premise, but require a different standard of behavior and proof.
So, the administration has started a public relations campaign that emphasises the durability and viability of our civilian court system as an example to the world.
They're highlighting the fact that even the u-trou bomber (I refuse to call him alleged since there were three hundred or so innocent people who saw him give himself third degree groin burns on an aircraft) will be "innocent until proven guilty".
Ironically, even in this case, I agree with the principle, if not the choice of venue.
If you're going to try him in a civilian court, then he should get civilian rules.
All of them.
If you're going to try him in a civilian court, then he should get civilian rules.
All of them.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a fundamental cornerstone of the American way of life, constitutionally guaranteed to all.
It is this guarantee that causes so much caution to prevent asserting guilt in normal situations.
That's why we're supposed to call people "suspects" instead of "criminals", "alleged" instead of "perpetrator", and "defendant" instead of "guilty party".
And, if we're going to try bomb-boy in a civilian court, then those rights, as well as others, accrue to him as well.
That's why the administration felt it proper to read him his Miranda rights before getting serious about questioning him, probably voiding the opportunity to gain valuable intelligence.
Same rules for everybody playing the same game.
But I have to question just how committed the O-man and his administration is to this concept, especially when it comes to the Christmas bomber.
Because while everybody is supposed to be presumed "innocent until proven guilty", the O-man and his adminitration czars are going out of their way to prejudice any jury that might be impanelled.
Just this past weekend, Babbling Joe Biden, the O-man's VP, was on one of the Sunday talking heads shows.
Biden reiterated the administration’s claim that Mohammed’s trial would result in a guilty verdict.
”That decision as to where and when…is being considered right now,” Biden said, adding: “he will not be acquited, he will be found guilty, he will be in jail, and he will stay there.”
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, representing the official administration position, has also commented.
"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to meet justice and he's going to meet his maker," Gibbs told CNN's "State of the Union."
"He will be brought to justice and he's likely to be executed for the heinous crimes that he committed in killing and masterminding the killing of 3,000 Americans."
"That you can be sure of."
"We wouldn't go to trial and indict him if we didn't feel like we had a case that would lead to a conviction."
"And I don't have any problem saying that I think that conviction would lead to the death sentence.""
And, of course, the O-man couldn't resist weighing in, either.
"I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him," Obama said in an interview with NBC News.
With a series of assurances like that, some legal experts say they worry a jury would be prejudiced due to the overflow of information regarding the trials, including the right to be "innocent until proven guilty".
So, once again, it appears that the O-man and his administration feel they have the right to pick and choose what laws and what parts of the Constitution they think apply to them.
And, what parts they will allow to apply to the rest of us.
And not applying those laws and Constitutional rights to all in a uniform and fair way is the road to tyranny.
“This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.” ---- Plato
"The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation – enlightened as it is – if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men." ---- Samuel Adams
"The whole point, according to the administration, to trying him in federal court, was to insure that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad had the constitutional protections that American citizens would get, including the presumption of innocence."
"And by coming out and publicly saying things like he will be convicted, he will be executed, it really goes against what the administration has said is the very purpose for trying him in federal court in the first place," says Thomas Dupree, a former Department of Justice official.
