The prosecutor says something prejudicial in the course of his examination of the defendant, without setting a proper foundation, such as "When did you starting sleeping with your neighbor?"

The defense counsel jumps to his feet and shouts, "Objection!"

The judge agrees, turning to the jury and saying, "Sustained.  The jury will disregard the question, and it will be stricken from the record."

The defense counsel just lost, because he cannot "un-ring the bell."  The jury has already heard it, and they are free to speculate on the significance of the question, even though the judge has told them not to do so, as he has found the evidence irrelevant to the case.  

If a prosecutor did this often enough, he could be held "in contempt of court," and fined or jailed, or even disbarred. Such prejudicial behavior violates the Canons of Ethics.

Now we have the case of Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Charles D. "Cully" Stimson, who criticized a number of major law firms for representing terrorism suspects.   He went on to suggest that CEO's of American companies should reevaluate whether they should be represented by such firms.    Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales also cast aspersions on the Guantanamo defense counsels.  

I'm sure many misguided voters would think these behaviors are just fine.  These are the same people who objected to the "not guilty" verdict in the O.J. Simpson trial.  But these loyal Americans need to understand a key pillar of the protection of our liberties.  That is the right of everyone to have a fair trial.  If we allow that pillar to be eroded, we begin the slippery slope of losing our liberties.  

When Johnny Cochran defended O.J. Simpson so effectively, it wasn't because he as an individual wanted a murderer to go free.  But all lawyers are "officers of the court," and one of the roles of a defense counsel is to defend all of us from high handed, violent, intimidating, and fascist administration of our justice system.  

The term "not guilty" does not mean innocent.  It can also mean that the justice system has been improperly administered in this case, and the society has a greater interest in having an impartially administered justice system than seeing one particular criminal go to prison.  In the case of the O.J. Simpson case, every police force and DA's office in the country had to reevaluate their procedures, and improve the administration of justice.  The case was a warning to all law enforcement agencies that they will be ineffective, if they do not collect evidence and protect the rights of our citizens properly.  .  

As for Mr. Simpson, he did not go "Scott free."  We have a civil system as well, which has a different standard of proof--"a preponderance of the evidence" (the blindfolded statue with the scales) rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt."  Mr. Simpson was found legally responsible for the deaths, and fined $8.5 million.  Furthermore, he cannot do much for the rest of his life without being hounded by the media.  So he is certainly paying the penalty of a kind of Purgatory.  

I use the O.J. Simpson case as an example, because it is so well known, but these are the principles, which are administered daily in every city and town in the United States.  Indeed, we have an entire matrix of checks and balances, designed to protect our people from high handed enforcers of the law.  If that matrix is damaged, our liberties are in jeopardy.  

This is why the behaviors of Mr. Stimson and Mr. Gonzales are so objectionable.  By making their comments, they threaten the fairness of the judicial procedures in Guantanamo, and put the entire American system of government into question on the World stage.  The loss of our reputation as a nation, which has been cased by many of the behaviors of the Bush Administration, will have untold consequences to the American people over a long period of time.  This is just one example of how the Administration is not working in our best interests.