Just curious

Guantanamo Bay prisoner Salim Ahmed Hamdan, better known as Osama bin Laden's driver, was to be the first person tried by a military commission. But last November, his trial was stopped as soon as it began when a federal judge ruled the proceedings are unlawful because they include a provision "that permits the exclusion of the accused from his trial."

The matter is now before a panel of a federal appeals court. The Shrub gang, which made up the previously non-existent category of "enemy combatant" for the prisoners, insists they can't be allowed the same legal protections as Americans because evidence would include classified information to which the accused should not have access. The argument, which in essence assumes guilt, leads to the conclusion that defendants can be barred from their own trials.

With that background, this is what I'm curious about:

During the appeals court arguments, Judge A. Raymond Randolph noted that other countries' legal systems don't allow a defendant to be present for all parts of a trial. And some countries don't allow cross-examination of witnesses, Judge John Roberts added.

So when do you think Tom DeLay is going to threaten these judges with consequences? When is he going to rant and rave about these "out of control" justices? I mean, after all, they did refer to the laws of other countries in indicating support of the government's position.

And that is what he was so upset about in the Terri Schiavo case - wasn't it?

Footnote: Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, one of Hamdan's Pentagon-appointed lawyers, says Hamdan is innocent.

"Driving Osama bin Laden around didn't kill anybody; driving Osama bin Laden around didn't further the plot against the United States," he said. "A driver, whether he's Hitler's driver, Martha Stewart's driver or any other driver, doesn't necessarily have any knowledge of what's going on."

I don't know if that's a terribly convincing argument, but give him this, he's trying.