One of the cornerstones of our great American experiment is that all persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and each person is entitled to representation by a competent attorney when accused of a crime.

I guess the Deputy Secretary of Defense hates the Constitution and the very principles upon which this country was founded. Why else would he threaten lawyers representing Gitmo detainees? Read on intrepid progressives, because one more nail in the coffin of this great experiment just got pounded on Friday.

The Bush administration is continuing their sick and pathetic policy of torturing people in Iraq when they think that all the lights and cameras are off. This is the subject of a new report out of Iraq from Amnesty International. The Bush administration would like you to think that the Abu Girhab photos were just a matter of a few frat boys gotten out of control. But this new report shows that the Bush administration's torture plans are far broader than that. In their twisted logic, they thought that as soon as all the lights and cameras were off, they could go right back to doing whatever they wanted to.

A case that truly defies logic (AP/Yahoo):

Lawyers Take Cubans' Case to Federal Court
By LAURA WIDES-MUNOZ, Associated Press Writer Thu Jan 12, 3:29 PM ET
[edited]

Under the government's long-standing "wet-foot, dry-foot" policy, Cubans who reach U.S. soil are generally allowed to stay, while those stopped at sea are returned to the communist island. In this case, the government said it sent the Cubans back to their homeland because the bridge no longer connects to land.

The Cubans set out from their homeland in a small boat and thought they were safe when they reached the bridge Jan. 4 after more than a day at sea. But the bridge, which runs side by side with a newer bridge, is missing several chunks, and the group had the misfortune of reaching a section that no longer touches land.

99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name. - Steven Wright

A judge has thrown out a lawsuit over the inability of Muslims to use a Quran for courtroom oaths, as reported here.

The ruling stated that the ACLU and Muslim Syidah Mateen failed to show that a legal controversy exits between the state of North Carolina and the plantiffs.

Here are the essentials:

The judge did not address whether state law allows people to use non-Christian texts for oath-taking, the main issue the ACLU wanted resolved.

"We're disappointed the judge did not reach the merits (of the case)," said ACLU lawyer Seth Cohen, who confirmed Thursday's ruling. "We're confidant we would have won on the merits."

Although this is only one case, it could be an important issue in the months to come, that is, if we are determined to "stay the course."

The issue surfaced after Guilford County's two top judges turned down a gift of Qurans from a Greensboro Islamic center after deciding than an oath on the Quran is not a legal oath.

State law refers to someone laying his hand on the "Holy Scriptures," which they interpret to mean the Christian Bible. As an alternative, the law allows someone to affirm to tell the truth while holding their hand upraised.

When the state Administrative Office of the Courts declined to intervene, the ACLU took the issue to court, arguing that the term "Holy Scriptures" is broad enough to include many religious texts.

A couple of notable things, worthy of discussion by the Cortex community:

1. What constitutes "Holy Scriptures"?

2. If non-Christians are forced to swear on a Christian text, are they bound by perjury rules?

In theory, I suppose, we expect everyone who appears in a court of law to speak the truth.  Just as we expect witnesses before Congress to speak the truth as well, whether they are sworn in or not.

Yeah.

[Cross-posted at The Left Coaster and Booman Tribune]

Six days from now--December 9th--is the five year anniversary of the day I mournfully rhyme with Don McLean's famous song American Pie:  the day the country died.  That's the day, of course, when the Supreme Court decided to hear Bush vs. Gore and issued the stay on the Florida election, stealing the election for Bush.

Theft of the democracy and the utterly disastrous Bush presidency (9/11, the Iraq war, crippling deficits, horrible employment, widening class chasm, environmental degradation) has been a disgraceful painful consequence, but the day the country died I was equally horrified at the pernicious effects Bush vs. Gore would have on the very concept of the law itself.

Patrick Fitzgerald, in his press conference on October 28, made clear what kind of testimony he still seeks.

As others have written, including emptywheel at The Next Hurrah, the indictment itself was written to signal to others of interest that Fitzy already has a lot of information, and a lot of witnesses.  What's more, it's likely that he is (think Don Adams here as Maxwell Smart) this close to bringing a conspiracy indictment.

But during his press conference, Fitzy told all concerned exactly what he wants to know, putting everyone involved in this conspiracy into a clasic prisoner's dillemma situation.

More on the flip.