bloomsbury says:

Unexpectedly?

How can anyone say that Major Esterhazy was 'unexpectedly' acquitted? After what had gone before, his acquittal must have been completely expected.

Again, a little knowledge of history would stand you in good stead. First, since the Dreyfus court martial in 1894, a new government had come to power and a new military intelligence officer, Georges Picquart, was in charge when another communication with the Germans (which could hardly have been written by Dreyfus) was intercepted. Picquart had conclusive evidence that the original document that was the basis of the Dreyfus conviction was written by Esterhazy. That Esterhazy was acquitted in 1898 may not have come as a surprise to the court and to much of the French army, but it was to Picquart and to large segments of the public.

Especially by the army officers who framed Dreyfus and would do anything to save Esterhazy. A decision was made in 'respectable' circles to frame an innocent man, that was my point and the point of the eminent lawyer I referred to. He's a Queen's Counsel actually-which is the highest distinction a lawyer can achieve under the British legal system. I'll take his interpretation over frankly my dear's any time.

I don't dispute his interpretation; in fact, I quite agree with the interpretation. I dispute his facts. If you want to believe that the Dreyfus affair was about murder because a QC says so, that's fine with me. If you want to believe that the guilty party was never charged because a QC says so, that's fine with me as well. If you want to believe that French legal process is the same as American or British or Australian because a QC says so, it's still fine. Fortunately, reality is not affected by what or who you choose to believe. But if you want your interpretations to be taken seriously, it is better if the facts of the case are correctly stated. Of course, I may be doing your pet QC an injustice since he may have cited the facts correctly and it is you who have misrepresented them. Since you provide no citations of your anonymous QC, I have no way to know.

The point he was making is that strippping away protections from an accused does nothing to stop terrorism and a lot to destroy our way of life and our protections under the law. Whether Dreyfus' trial was a military trial or not doesn't change the facts of a conspiracy at the highest levels to frame an innocent man.

This is true; and it also doesn't matter whether the charge was treason, murder, or jaywalking. It is just that if you want to use a case as an example, it is better to state the case correctly.

And now it's going on in America, Britain and Australia all the time and is being done for purely political purposes. I repeat: Padilla is innocent of any crime-he simply has the misfortune to be a Muslim as Dreyfus had the misfortune in his time to be a Jew. That's what happens when we allow the law to be hijacked by bigots, fanatics and corrupt politicians.

I don't know if Padilla is innocent of any crime or not. But he certainly did not deserve, either as an American citizen or a simple human being, the treatment that he received at the hands of the government of the United States.

And indeed, the Dreyfus affair has important lessons and is a strong parallel to the Padilla affair. But it is clear that the government of the United States has no interest in the lessons of history.

But if you (or anyone) wants to use the Dreyfus affair as a lesson then one should be aware of the salient details. I can recommend the following:

• Jean-Denis Bredin, The Affair: The Case of Alfred Dreyfus (1986)
• Michael Burns, France and the Dreyfus Affair: A Documentary History (1999)
• David Levering Lewis, Prisoners of Honor, the Dreyfus Affair (1994)

But if you don't have time for books, and since you will apparently believe anything that an Australian counsel/judge says, I suggest that you read: The Hon Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG, The Dreyfus Case a Century On - Ten Lessons for Ireland & Australia. This is available on the web at http://www.lawsociety.ie/documents/committees/hr/lectures/dreyfusaffair2006.pdf

How will the Democrats in Congress react to the "deal with Iran, and then Iraq will resolve itself" approach?

More important, how does this approach differ significantly from the "deal with Saddam, and then Iraq will resolve itself" approach.

I didn't realize that you are one of those people who is incapable of ever admitting error. Otherwise I wouldn't have tried to point out your mistakes to you. I have no disagreement with your conclusions, only with your facts–schmacts attitude. I am willing to stipulate your extremely high opinion of yourself so you don't have to keep pointing it out, but anyone who believes that the Dreyfus case was about murder or that the guilty party was never charged is in need of a history lesson regardless of what they may think. A gentleman would have said 'I'm sorry I misstated the facts, but that doesn't affect my conclusions.' Only those who have an aversion to admitting error have a need to attack those who point out their errors. Some of us can be alarmed by the erosion of civil rights in the name of fighting "terror" and keep the facts straight at the same time. If it's that important to you not to have to admit your errors, consider your errors ignored, and I apologize for having incurred your wrath by pointing them out.

Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani is a Shi'a, not Sunni.

That would be Sayyid Ali Husaini al-Sistani. If you read shooter's posting you'll see he is talking about Al Sistani who presumably runs a Sunni falafel stand in Baquba.