[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

In a small and no doubt transient victory for civil rights, Judge Brinkema granted Moussaoui access to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s testimony. Moussaoui is on trial for his role in the 9/11 terrorist attack, and he claims Mohammed can testify that he wasn’t involved.

The government is expected to appeal on the grounds that, says CNN, “no court can order the executive branch to produce an enemy combatant detained on foreign soil and that doing so would disrupt the war on terrorism.”

The point they’re still missing is this: the justice system is not designed to make it easier to prosecute the war on terrorism. It’s designed to give people fair trials, and sometimes it even succeeds. We do not make our judicial decisions based on whether or not the choice would make the prosecution’s life easier.

And it is completely unacceptable to create a method by which the executive branch can hold anyone they like without oversight or recourse.

[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

I suspect the conflict between France and Libya qualifies as irony. Libya’s agreed to pay compensation to the families of those killed in the Lockerbie bombings, but France is threatening to veto the Security Council resolution lifting UN sanctions against Libya.

If anyone was under the impression that France acts on purely noble motives, we can perhaps lay that to rest. France is holding out for more money. On the other hand, one’s forced to wonder why the tactics used with Libya are so unacceptable when it comes to Iraq.

Libya has chemical weapons, and pursued nuclear weapons in the past — and maybe even in the present. On the other hand, Qaddafi has apparently stopped supporting terrorism, so perhaps that’s the difference.

In which case, what does that say about the success of UN sanctions?