Ms. Amann ("No Faith In the Past 228 Years?") rightly suspects the can-do efforts to erect 'special courts' (and who can forget the charming German for that phrase, introduced in the mid-30s by the the then-government of that troubled land?); I have lost track of the number of constituencies that are agitating for them: gun-offense courts, sex-offense courts, domestic violence courts ... those come to mind and I imagine there are more.

But as I've mentioned before, "ordinary courtmartial" isn't really an option if the US seeks to retain credibility in the world community and actually ensure the doing of justice. Most nations in the world know darned well that a military trial is 'company justice' no matter how much lipstick you put on the pig. Our sanguine American admiration, newly minted only in the past few decades, not only lipsticks this ancient carnivore but burnishes its thick hide with wax, but nobody else is fooled.

It's company justice and it's run by the Pentagon, and if any consolation can survive that double whammy, whereby the Pentagon/government declares itself the victim, judge, jury, investigator, and prosecutor, and owns the defense counsel and the witnesses ... well, let's recall that when the country's numerous inactive Reservists were offered the opportunity to fall 24/7/365 under its jurisdiction a decade or two ago, they instantly and vehemently declined the honor. The assurances of their brother and sister officers in the JAGs to 'just trust us' was insufficient grounds for the doughty Reserves. I except here the as-yet-fully-known consequences upon the JAG Corps of dealing with the current Military Commissions debacle.

But overall, in regard to courtsmartial, what is true in current American military doctrine is also good if sobering advice for anybody: If you find yourself defending, you've already lost.