Civilian Trials for Terrorists

Slate's Dahlia Lithwick wants to know why Republicans are so afraid of open trials for terrorists, especially wanna-be Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

It's the Abdulmutallab trial the confuses me. (Like spelling his name isn't confusing enough.) It's not like anyone has to worry about any super-secret intelligence and counter-terrorism techniques will be exposed if he's tried. A civilian airline passenger--a foreigner, no less--caught him red-handed. They have everything they need to convict him right there; it's a slam dunk. If they don't introduce evidence obtained in a secret manner--which they shouldn't need to--the defense can't ask for it, as it's not germane.

Really, what are they so afraid of, when our criminal justice system was just the ticket for Zacarias Moussaoui and Richard Reid?

Disappointing

The beloved Spousal Equivalent has described Slate's Dahlia Lithwick as "[my] intellectual mistress." I love reading Ms. Lithwick's articles, especially her coverage of the Supreme Court. Thats why i was so disappointed to see this in today's story:

"Sanders explains that fabricated evidence itself doesn't constitute a constitutional violation because that can happen only when it's introduced at trial. Justice Sonia Sotomayor—sporting earrings the size of small saucepans today—cuts him off."

She described the adornments of none of the male justices. If a man had written this, his head would be on a pike in Slate's DoubleXX blog.