<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://www.slate.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>&amp;quot;Relaxed Procedural Protections&amp;quot; in Terrorism Cases: What the Military Commissions Debate Is Really About</title><link>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/05/15/relaxed-procedural-protections-in-terrorism-cases-what-the-military-commissions-debate-is-really-about.aspx</link><description>Eric writes : "We are agreed, yes? That procedural protections in civilian courts are too high for war-on-terror prosecutions? ... If yes, then there is just an empirical question of whether we should demand that federal judges relax procedural protections</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP2 (Build: 61129.2)</generator></channel></rss>