I am absolutely convinced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be subject to the most exacting demands of justice. The American people will insist on it and my administration will insist on it.
_____________________________

I notice that Thick Bob the Snarling, Stoopit Asshole has lifted his hind leg over the thread again. If it's any consolation to those who deplore ad hominem comments, I offer this loophole: it's actually more of an ad canis rabidus.

And I do swap the tinfoil chapeau for the horns of Devil's Advocate long enough to grimly consider the argument: there are teeming millions of vicious, reactionary yahoos like Bob et al, and worse, from coast to coast-- world-wide, in fact, counting yahoo expats and the military. Obama is their president too!

And since these troubled, hysterical bottom-feeders, aka the Republican Party base, already have their doubts about the Commander-in-Chief, Obama is "forced" to stick to hard-line jingo clichés!

The last thing he can afford to do is further alienate a suspicious and... terrified populace!

So, along with my putative wish that KSR be depicted as a "girl scout", I can't justify my fantasy that Obama had begun his reply by saying, "Jennifer, did you accidently forget to take your Stupid Pills again today?"

But it is telling, and pathetic, that Obama instinctively withdrew from even making the suggestion that the bedrock Amerikan legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty" made the question somewhat problematic, if not invalid.

Does anyone really think that a person ingrained with such habits of public prevarication, and given over to perpetually playing footsie with the most benighted and barbaric elements of the body politic, is at bottom virtuous and altruistic?

Besides the old-school European elite, e.g. the Nobel Committee and pieceofcake, that is.

I see. And "effective assistance of counsel" has nothing to do with ensuring that the defendant gets a fair trial.
_____________________________

Hmm, although I'm not an attorney, nor do I play one on teevee or comments threads, let me say this about that.

It is indeed the judge who has the primary responsibility for ensuring a full and fair trial, regardless of whether the judge is the ultimate tryer of fact.

An obvious component of providing effective counsel is calling "foul" (i.e., lodging an "objection") at any point in which the proceedings are in apparent violation of law and/or the established rules, protocols, and practices of jurisprudence.

Not to mention a thousand other ancillary actions, e.g. requesting a change of venue, and all of the other arcane crap symbolized on episodes of "Law and Order" by the Slick Defense Attorney pulling out those folded blue papers to thwart the DA's righteous plans to put away the Bad Guy(s) or Gal(s).

In that respect, the defendant's counsel is indeed insisting on, if not independently "ensuring", a fair trial. And to the extent that an attorney is an "officer of the court", the attorney is bound by ethical standards that likewise serve the interests of judicial fairness.

But those are secondary, meta-effects of discharging their primary responsibility of providing effective counsel for their clients.

The advocates exert a measure of control over the judge, and the checks and balances incorporated into judicial proceedings implicitly serve the purpose of ensuring a fair trial.

Effective assistance of counsel and ensuring a fair trial aren't mutually exclusive, but it is the judge has the ultimate burden of responsibility for the fairness of the trial.

Forget it, Glenn... it's SalonFugly.

Yes, you're quite right to observe that any stimulus, visual or otherwise, in the category of Islamofascist Enemy would elicit a hostile reaction from the lizard-brained.

That said, just for the hell of it I ran a Google Image search for "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed". The results are linked@sig, FYI.

I've never tried to understand the dynamics of Google searches, apart from an old and fuzzy notion that search engines use data-mining robots or algorithms to constantly troll the Internets.

Anyhoo, in case you don't want to play "made you look", it turns out that the problematic image is so popular that it crowds out others.

BTW, I may be the only Amerikan who feels this way, but I find it repugnant, and not mere happenstance, that the "mug shot" of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in captivity now heading Glenn's article on SalonFugly's main page is apparently the one and only photo available to the corporate media.

Not only "corporate"; Amy Goodman used it today on "Democracy Now".

It's very reminiscent of the photos of the captured Saddam Hussein having his teeth checked by US military forces-- which, IIRC, arguably violated those quaint Geneva Conventions.

This KSM image may make a dandy T-shirt to fill the niche left when sales of "Ayatollah Assahola" shirts dried up, but IMO it's clearly propaganda.

One look at that unshaven, unkempt scowling mug is all it takes for primitive life-forms like Bob the Carpenter to "know" the guy is guilty as sin.

I'll be sure to let the SalonFugly editors know how I feel, because they're always very respectful and appreciative of feedback-- they might stop-loss my subscription for an extra two months, if Brittany OKs it!