Innocent until Proven Guilty

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat -- "The proof lies upon the one who affirms, not the one who denies."

The presumption of innocence is a backbone of our legal system. Some scholars have traced its origins earlier than England, past Rome, beyond Greece to the Book of Deuteronomy.

The seriousness of the concept is expressed in the number of countries and international organizations that have adopted this concept. Over the years, many learned scholars have expressed the same sentiment as the highly regarded jurist, William Blackstone, in the 18th Century:

"... it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
~ William Blackstone, Commentaries on The Laws of England, 1764

Over the years, even though I have never come close to needing the protection of innocent until proven guilty, I have always been comforted that, should I need that protection, it would be there.

Now, I am not sure.

The Attorney General and his boss, the President of the United States, are promising that Khalid Shaikh Mohamed, the admitted mastermind of the 9/11 attack, will be convicted in a US criminal court. Really?

What happened to his Miranda Rights? He was not "Mirandized." If you are going to try him in a US Criminal Court, isn't that cause for dismissal?

"Failure (to convict) is not an option," said Attorney General Holder. Really! So that presumes that the Defense Attorney in THIS trial is just going to roll-over and play along with the Prosecutor? Since when? Can anyone say OJ Simpson? The Defense Attorneys rolled over there, right?

Doesn't the Attorney General's remark prevent any impartial Jury from being seated? Why would a Jury deliberate in a meaningful way, when the outcome is already determined?

What happened to my promise from our Government of presumption of innocence by the practice of law in this country, if the Attorney General can predict the outcome? Isn't that a sham, a "rigged" trial? Is a Jury needed any more if the Attorney General can guarantee the outcome?

By sending this case to a criminal court in the US where Miranda Rights are guaranteed, where another country interrogated the suspect, and arrested the suspect but where our standards and protections will be extended to what was then a military operation -- all violations of our civil guarantees -- won't those violations of our Civil Courts and our rights, guarantee an acquittal for KSM?

But -- if a fair trial isn't guaranteed by the Attorney General's actions and a verdict of guilty is rendered as promised by Mr. Holder, haven't all of our rights in the Civil Courts been trampled upon -- by our own Government?