proceed simultaneously. Petitioners even concede that conflicting findings may arise as to whether Petitioners are properly characterized as unlawful enemy combatants. See Pet’r’s Opp’n at 7 (“[t]o be sure, Petitioners’ alleged status as ‘enemy combatants’ would be a necessary predicate to any jurisdiction that a future military commission might seek to exercise”). The Court is also persuaded that Petitioners are not irreparably harmed by this Court’s abstention while military commissions proceed with the charges against Petitioners. The inconvenience of any criminal prosecution, including those associated with the military commissions, is insufficient, standing alone, to warrant federal court intervention. Cf. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 46, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971) (<HOLDING>). The various speedy trial rights built into
holding that interim awards of attorneys fees are inappropriate where the only relief obtained is a preliminary injunction which may be subsequently overturned on the merits holding that constitutional protections against double jeopardy apply to a defendant prosecuted as an habitual criminal holding that an injunction is an extraordinary remedy holding that an injunction against criminal enforcement even if the defendant believes the statute which he is prosecuted is unconstitutional is inappropriate absent an unusual circumstance requiring equitable relief holding that  1983 is not an exception to the state tax injunction act