<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Due process of law vs. no law: A slim difference?</title><link>http://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/freeforall/archive/2008/12/09/due-process-of-law-vs-no-law-a-slim-difference.aspx</link><description>Every time I read something about the debate over whether captured suspected terrorists should be tried in one of President Bush&amp;#39;s &amp;quot;military commissions&amp;quot; or in a regular federal court, I have to admit smirking a bit. As a practicing criminal</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2007.1 (Build: 20917.1142)</generator></channel></rss>