Unused and Probably Unusable

Via the NYT, "Canada to unveil details of alleged terrorist ring," I found the following admirable comment by a prosecutor assistant commissioner of the RCMP, Mike McDonell, who

told Reuters it would be up to the court to decide whether to impose a gag order that would sharply restrict what the media can say about the charges.

``For a lot of the information, we prefer to introduce it through the courts in the first instance so that we're not prejudicing anyone's chances for a fair trial. If the court says we're free to talk, I'll be talking,'' he said.

Now, I don't usually talk up Canada, but in this case, good on them. I like the whole "catching terrorists before a building blows up" thing - that's good, very nice. Second, I like the whole idea of charging them with crimes. As opposed to, you know, simply kidnapping suspects and holding them without charges, in violation of the entire American Way of Doing Things.

Now, given that they identified these terrorists (who were practicing with their weapons at night and taking delivery of three tons of fertilizer, or about three times what our own homegrown coward-terrorist-maniacs used to murder 168 Americans in Oklahoma City, and given that the police are also charging them, what's so admirable about the quote?

Well, it shows a commendable concern with the rule of law. Criminal cases have to be tried in a court of law, not in the court of public opinion. If a judge should in the future impose a gag order, the RCMP will abide by it. But more, before charges are unveiled and a court can rule on whether some filings will be made under seal, they want to avoid prejudicing anyone's case.

Now that's respect for law and order. Real law, real order, not just a pro-prosecutorial lock-'em-up inability to recognize that law cuts both ways, imposing responsibilities - duties! - as well as exacting penalties.