Why not attempt trial in a federal district court, and see if a conviction can stand notwithstanding the constitutional violations? There are myriad ways the constitutional infirmities could be found and a conviction yet upheld.

I'm feeling pretty sure - especially after consulting several colleagues on this today - that KSM's case is strong enough that it might very well result in conviction in federal district court. But I was only bringing up a KSM dismissal as a worst case scenario. I'm not comfortable wit the idea of just wholesale transferring all the detainee cases into US court. I can think of almost endless ways that will unfairly compromise the prosecution, and provided unearned windfalls for defense, that might or will result in miscarriages of justice.

Otherwise, release KSM and have CIA folks stay on him like white on rice.

Here's where I depart slightly from Obama's stated concern. He says he doesn't want some of the Gitmo detainees to be released because "they might blow us up." I don't care about that. Lots of people want to blow us up all the time; we're always on tap for that.

My concern is this: the prosecution, as well as the defendants, is entitled to a fair trial, under our rule of law. It's not fair to the prosecution to suddenly change all the rules on them, to their great disadvantage, 7 years into the process.

This is a unique problem brought on by the unique and mind-boggling incompetence and malfeasance of the Bush administration. That's why an "easy" solution such as "just transfer them all to district court!" is unsatisfactory and why a compromise, third way such as the president-elect is actively considering is the one most in the interests of justice.

..I found this in a Washington Post article. This is really chilling.

"Officials and analysts say Israel's top three political leaders disagree over how the remainder of the war should play out. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is said to favor an expansion, while Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are believed to be more hesitant. Barak has aggressively pushed the talks in Egypt; Livni has said that Israel can soon declare victory and withdraw. The three run the country together and must achieve consensus before Israel can act.

...

"Gabriel Sheffer, a political scientist at Hebrew University, said politics may play a role in the differing opinions among the three. In elections slated for Feb. 10, both Barak and Livni are hoping to succeed Olmert, who is stepping down under an ethics cloud. "If the number of Israeli casualties goes up, the effect on Barak and Livni will be very bad," he said. "Olmert has nothing to lose."

The idea of continuing a war that is so toxic to ones own country's future and so deadly to the people you've oppressed for 60 years, simply because you have nothing to lose politically, makes me want to vomit.

"She [Condoleezza Rice] was left shamed. A resolution that she prepared and arranged, and in the end she did not vote in favour," Mr Olmert said in a speech in the southern town of Ashkelon.

The UN Security Council passed a resolution last Thursday calling for an immediate ceasefire in the three-week-old conflict in the Gaza Strip and an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza where hundreds have been killed.

Fourteen of the council's 15 members voted in favour of the resolution, which was later rejected by both Israel and Hamas.

The United States, Israel's main ally, had initially been expected to voted in line with the other 14 but Ms Rice later became the sole abstention.

"In the night between Thursday and Friday, when the secretary of state wanted to lead the vote on a ceasefire at the Security Council, we did not want her to vote in favour," Mr Olmert said

"I said 'get me President Bush on the phone'. They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn't care. 'I need to talk to him now'. He got off the podium and spoke to me.

"I told him the United States could not vote in favour. It cannot vote in favour of such a resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote in favour."

Mr Bush has consistently placed the blame for the conflict on Hamas, telling reporters on Monday that while he wanted to see a "sustainable ceasefire" in Gaza, it was up to Hamas to choose to end its rocket fire on Israel.

From The Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/4224910/George-Bush-shamed-Condoleezza-Rice-says-Ehud-Olmert.html

Some Americans have been working diligently to dispel the notion that the Israeli government has too much say in U.S. policy, while Mr. Olmert is bragging that it does.

Not Ehud Olmert's best P.R. moment.

It was also not reported here that the resolution was in fact prepared by the U.S. delegation, and certainly not by Secretary Rice herself. A very revealing moment.

I was just writing, that perhaps Olmert is simply looking out for Olmert. His time in office has been a disaster, and perhaps he is at least trying to prove that he had some form of competence. i.e., that he could order around Bush and Rice.

link at sig

be sure to listen to the music player on the header of Page 1

I saw that elsewhere, earlier today (Juan Cole's comments thread, I think). How to make sense of it? Olmert's account left me wondering... but, the denials struck me as just as weird. Of course, we'd expect some unnamed sources to deny it, even/especially if it were true. But, could it really have been that blatant an exchange between Olmert and Bush?

But here's Timothy3 on the matter: It is utter baloney/nonsense/horseshit (that last being my preferred) to accept political "triangulation" from these people.

Look, if they know about triangulation, and we know about triangulation, then why all this triangulation? To whom are they speaking?

VV-[Not who, I think's it's what are they NOT saying. I feel politicians intentional deception is to commit an otherwise unapproving act or some other matter to which the person being lied to would object.]

It's as if I say to you, "Hey, I'm going to lie to you,"

You say, even before I get the words out of my mouth, "I know you're going to lie to me."

I know that you know this. You know it, too.

So why this dance macabre (or at least, deception)?

VV-I think the deception is part of how our lack of accountability has been nurtured. In other words, the politician/Liar is saying that they are going to do something that would otherwise not be approved, and the person lied to enables the lie by not confronting it.

And normally the persons confronting politician's lies are the media through tough questioning and investigative reporting and a responsive electorate. And the fewer questions that are asked and demanded, then the easier the lie.

vv