The allegation isn't ridiculous beyond belief. The fact that no files were kept for many detainees is.

The "fact".

There are so many reasons this is mockery of our justice system.

Our civil justice system is based on the presumption of innocence. Anyone tried in our courts gets that benefit. Can you think of another instance where the US attorney general and the US president have "guaranteed" a guilty verdict for an indicted defendant?

Another reason: Holder was asked by Lindsey Graham (video below) about Mirandizing Osama bin Laden, were he caught. Holder said there would be no need to do so because the evidence against him was "overwhelming". When was the last time a judge accepted a failure to Mirandize because the prosecutor said evidence of guilt was overwhelming?

Another: what happens if KSM is found not guilty? What then? You think Obama and Co. are going to let him go? Not a chance in this world ... he'll continue to be detained/under arrest in some form or another, again mocking the system.

Neither Holder nor Obama have been able to explain exactly why some detainees are being tried here, and others aren't. Nor has any legal justification been given for why military tribunals are good enough for some, and not for others. I listed to Hugh Hewitt interview liberal law school dean Irwin Chemerinsky yesterday, and even he couldn't explain it.

Graham calls this a perversion of our justice system, and he is absolutely right. There is no rule of law here. It's a show trial.

It is amusing to watch Republicans like yourself mocking Holder for his response when his response was actually right and your critique is actually nonsensical. First of all, neither Holder nor Obama "guaranteed" a win. They are simply evaluating the odds of winning (we already went through this just a few posts ago- your short term memory isn't moving much into long term memory). Second, yes, it is perfectly plausible that a person who doesn't receive their Miranda warnings is still convicted (in fact, it happens all the time). Republicans all over the country are rushing to state what they view to be legal certainties instead of actually figuring out what the law provides first. Failure to Mirandize a suspect means only that certain evidence isn't admissible (such as statements made after arrest and evidence derived as a consequence of those statements). If there is plenty of evidence without any evidence which would be excluded due to failure to Mirandize, then no big deal. There is a legal consequence for failure to Mirandize someone, but it isn't that the person gets to go free, as Republicans like yourself seem to think.

And if they are found innocent by a court of law, then yes- they need to be set free. That is precisely what due process means (and the thought is hopefully enough to properly motivate the prosecutor to put in an A+ effort).

You could have just said "no, they haven't decided the legal status, but they are proceeding haphazardly."

Eric Holder is a douche. With no respect for the law.

Obama is doing exactly what Republicans said he would do: treating war like domestic crime. It's stunning to see someone like Cali admit that if KSM is found not guilty in NY, that he deserves to be set free. What a joke.

Didn't you just say above that any process that doesn't involve the possibility of freedom isn't a real process and is itself a joke? What happened to Tex from 10 minutes ago? He disagrees with Tex of now.

Nothing about what I described is haphazard. Difficult, yes. Haphazard, no. The fact that he is paying so much attention to actually building cases against the detainees is because he actually does respect the law, contrary to your assertion.

He is punting. Show trials with no guiding principles.

No, that's not what I said. Nice try, though.