Since the adminstration is setting this charade up in such a way as to tie the hands of defence counsel, I see only one option for the lawyers tasked with providing the best arguments on behalf of their clients. It will require far more guts than common sense might admit, but in the face of such draconian tactics, there appears no other course.
Counsel must, despite the unbalanced rules of procedure, ask questions that have been barred, attempt to admit evidence that has similarly been barred, object to any and all rulings that support these hideous restrictions, and willingly risk contempt citations from the tribunal. There ought to follow, then, appeals to the USSC with regard to the methods and means employed in these hearings based on the governments refusal to grant access to material witnesses; to question the methods employed to obtain the evidence against their clients; to attack the governments refusal to provide access to the materials and evidence required to provide a full and complete defence.
American jurisprudence used to mean something - used to be the envy of the legal world, embodied in a set of principles and rules that were the envy of the world. Now, sadly, it more closely resembles the sort of hearings one might expect to witness in China. It can only be a matter of time before they decide that billing the family of KSM for the bullets used to execute him seems like a fine idea.
