Terrorist

[paul.karen]

I am glad to see Obama Finally came to terms that we are at war.
And has himself used the word Terrorists.

Just curious how we should prosecute them.

[BigSky]

They should be tried by military tribunals.

[Jean]

A little bit of "unfriendly fire" would work too.

[Rerun]

Tried?  Which ever would convict them and put them to death. 

[Hemodoc]

The difficulty with the enemy combatant status goes back to the first application of that with Yasser Hamdi and Jose Padilla who were American citizens denied habeas corpus rights, or in other words, no constitutional rights.  Looking at the systems of jurisprudence around the world, in many ways, we have civil law which came out of Rome many centuries ago and we have the common law which developed through application of the Bible.  America's roots were more centered around the common law with elements of civil law as well.  The essential freedoms are guaranteed first with our right to Habeas Corpus but were initially denied to Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla until the US Supreme Court intervened.

http://rwor.org/a/1239/padilla.htm

"Habeas corpus (pronounced /ˌheɪbiːəs ˈkɔrpəs/) (Latin: You (shall) have the body[1]) is a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from their unlawful detention or that of another person. It protects individuals from harming themselves or from being harmed by the judicial system. Of English origin, the writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus

The issue of military tribunals in the modern age is superseded by these examples of how US citizens can be classified as an enemy combatant and lose all constitutional rights.  That is quite scary proposition.

As far as foreign enemy combatants captured in war theaters in battle overseas, the Geneva convention used to be the arbiter of justice in those situations under which military tribunals could also be convened.  When I was in the Army I carried my military ID and my Geneva Convention card.  Not sure what folks carry today, but I am saddened to see the disregard for the longstanding protections we had under the Geneva Convention.  But taking people off of the battlefield and putting them in a New York court room sounds like a dangerous idea in many ways.  I am not sure that this is the correct solution to the issue especially when under the Patriot Act, US citizens could be declared enemy combatants as well. 

[jennyc]

Looking at the systems of jurisprudence around the world, in many ways, we have civil law which came out of Rome many centuries ago and we have the common law which developed through application of the Bible.  America's roots were more centered around the common law with elements of civil law as well.  The essential freedoms are guaranteed first with our right to Habeas Corpus but were initially denied to Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla until the US Supreme Court intervened.

Not disagreeing with you Peter just want to point out Common Law doesn't come exactly from the Bible.
Common Law came about in England as a result of the courts of the day... The King's Bench, Exchequer, and the Court of Common Pleas and were not Canon Law. It is case law handed down or commonly known as the custom of the land. It evolved because there was a fault in the system of writs, a person had to apply for a writ, so a law was in effect broken even before it was law. It is also the reason why the UK has no formal Constitution as USA and Australia does as their constitution is found within the Common Law and Statute law. Also when the courts were formed they were formed as seperate entities to the church courts. The only reason there was a little influence from the church is becuase the Cleric's were most often judges beucase they could read.

The laws were actually derived from the Roman Codified laws, not canon law or biblical law (the whole aim was to keep the church out of the kings business) so whilst their is Christian influence on common law (due to the judiciary being made up of clerics) it isn't BASED on the Bible. In fact the dark ages (england) came about becuase of the collapse of the justinian code (roman law) and England came out of the dark ages when something akin to the justinian code was instituted when William conquered England and began the reformation of the laws of the land (he instituted a 'COMMON LAW' for the land rather than laws seperate to each county with the aim of keeping the church out of his business). Also Common Law as it exists in the US has evolved differently to other countries where in Australia and other countries they will hold current UK cases as being persuasive precedents whilst they will in general not allow US precedents all together.

Also Habeas Corpus (right to be broght before a judge to determine if your detention is legal) was denied to all  war prisoners, Aussies were held and put to trial under those farces of courts. I don't really care what they are guilty of but the fact remains for a country to deny anyone the right to trial (esp it's own citizens) is taking a huge step backwards.

Bush lost so much support around the world for his invasion and his handling of it (the world grieved with the US after 911 but quickly came to realise Bush used it as a means to and end to get back at Saddam and finish his fathers dirty work, its now gone too far- the Bali bombers were tried by Indonesian courts and executed by the Indosian system even though Australian's were the target of the attacks). If there is to be any international recognition then really the US needs to start adhereing to the Geneva Convention, Esp since not all those in custody are acutally combatants (come on we all know the CIA were offering money for info so anyone got dobbed in). If Obama has admitted that there is a war then the Geneva Convention applies, esp since they are termed enemy combatants.

Also if the US wants its captured soldiers to be treated respectfully then they should start by following the Geneva Convention. (The only reason Australia is still there is becuase of an agreement we have with the US, few here actually agree with the continued occuption). The US can't cry foul when it's soldiers are treated so badly considering how badly they treat enemy combatants, its akin to how the Japanese ran their pow camps in Singapore. At least POW's were considered just that POW's and were returned home (those that survied the Japenese camps, and trust me the Japanese didn't adhere to any conventions. They perpetrated horrid crimes against POW's even to the point of lining up and shooting female redcross nurses and their injured soldier charges research Changi POW camp and you'll see or Japanese occupation of Singapore).

I think the only thing that was done correctly was the trial and execution of Saddam, the US allowed him to be tried by his peers and executed by them, thus stopping him from becoming a martyr.

You see, the 'terrorists' have been captured on soil foreign to the US and not all were actually combatants a lot were civillians (refer above) so they should be protected by the Geneva Convention. For the US to completely ignore the convention is a huge mistake as it sets a precedent for coming wars, the outcomes could be catastrophic for any US and allied troops in future battles because if the US chooses to ignore pow rights what will the enemies do?

[Hemodoc]

Dear jennyc,

Good description of the Geneva convention and how it applies still to American soldiers of whom I was once one.  For America to have credibility throughout the world, we will have to hold higher standards or learn to speak Chinese.

As far as the common law issue and the Bible, I based that on the commentaries by William Blackstone. He observed a reverence to the God of the Bible and often referenced Scripture in his law review.

The Link to English Common Law

The supremacy of God's law was generally recognized in the English common law. Sir William Blackstone, the preeminent English legal authority widely followed by the American founders, recognized the binding legal nature of the law of God as understood in its basic principles. Blackstone maintained that English law (and therefore, American law) had its roots in the laws of God.

Blackstone recognized that "law, in its most general and comprehensive sense, signifies a rule of action." He identified the essential legal relationship that exists between God and his creation by observing, "Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being."20 God was acknowledged as the lawgiver and therefore the one who laid down certain immutable rules of action, that is, of right and wrong conduct.

Recognizing the relevance of the creation and the Bible, Blackstone noted that "pon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these."21 In other words, the law of God whether written in God's creation (nature) or in the Bible (revelation), spoke with a unified voice. Moreover, this law is absolute: any law of man to the contrary is of no effect.

http://www.lonang.com/conlaw/1/c12a.htm

[MooseMom]

The terrorists should be tried in civil courts just as the terrorist Timothy McVeigh was tried in the same fashion.  The terrorists did not strike our military forces.  They struck our citizenry, therefore, this is a civilian/judicial matter, not a military matter.  There was a reason that McVeigh was not tried in a military tribunal; he killed our children, not our soldiers.

The terrorists' purpose was to attack/disrupt our way of life, our very reason for being.  The essence of our country...our values, our convictions, our purpose, our protections, our rights, our demands, our hopes and our dreams are held in our laws.  Our judicial system upholds all of these things that make us American.  If we do not trust our laws and our fellow Americans on a jury, then we have lost our way, and our country is in great peril.

I want my country back.  I do not wish America to be downgraded to a nation that puts judicial power in the hands of the military as so often happens in other third world, failing states.  And after they are found guilty, put them in the max prison here in Illinois.  I WANT them in my backyard because I want to KNOW that they will NEVER see freedom EVER again.

[ahamner]

The terrorists should be tried in civil courts just as the terrorist Timothy McVeigh was tried in the same fashion.

Timothy McVeigh was a very disgruntled and troubled American citizen and former soldier acting without an organized ongoing effort by any organization or nation to perpetuate such attacks.  Islamic terrorists are participating in an ongoing global Jihad (War) against the non-Muslim World.  These terrorists are the footsoldiers in this war and are not common criminals.

The terrorists did not strike our military forces.  They struck our citizenry, therefore, this is a civilian/judicial matter, not a military matter.  There was a reason that McVeigh was not tried in a military tribunal; he killed our children, not our soldiers. The terrorists' purpose was to attack/disrupt our way of life, our very reason for being.

I disagree. I think the terrorist attacks by the Jihadists are a strategy to achieve their purpose, not the "purpose" .  Jihad is a Muslim holy war or spiritual struggle against infidels (non-muslims).  From Answers.com, Jihad by the radical islamists "has meant in practice military action for either the spreading of Islam or its defense, following on from the idea of the universality of Islam and the consequent necessity of strenuous and continuous action for the furtherance of the faith. The basis of the doctrine is found in the Koran, and in strict Islamic law jihad is a duty on all adult free male believers until Islam has attained universal domination; hence there can be no permanent peace with unbelievers but only limited truces."

The Jihadist attacks have not been limited to attacks on civilians.  Do you remember the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000 or the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983?  These attacks happened long before 9/11.

Germany massively bombed London cities killing many civilians including children at the beginning of the WWII.  What is the difference between the bombing of London by the Germans and bombings of civilians by the Jihadists?  Was the purpose of the German bombing to "disrupt" their way of life or was the objective to take over control of England as they had previously done to Poland, France, and other European nations.  Should Great Britain have tried any captured German soldiers in their civil courts during the war or handled them as they did in accordance with the Geneva Conventions?

[MooseMom]

Jihadists are not organized along the boundaries of recognized nation states.  They are not even organized amongst themselves.  Just because they have guns and pretend to be soldiers does not mean that they are any nation's "military".  Just because they have declared some spiritual war does not mean that they should have access to our military resources in the form of tribunals. 

The difference between the Germans bombing London or the Americans bombing Dresden and a bunch of sorry ragtag nutjobs hoping to get into heaven should be relatively obvious.  If the terrorists bomb military installations like the barracks or the USS Cole, then a trial by military tribunal is appropriate.  But in the case of 9/11, I do believe that a civil trial is best for the American people.

You are right...these terrorists are not common criminals, and for this reason, they should be tried in court by a jury of their peers and it should all be televised on C-Span for the whole world to see how democracy really works.  We Americans deserve the opportunity to try these people in OUR courts, not the military's.  They attacked CIVILIANS using CIVILIAN aircraft, and we CIVILIANS deserve to try them ourselves.  I don't care whether or not this is a "war".  I do NOT want the military to deprive the American public of our chance to serve justice.

[Hemodoc]

Dear MooseMom,

The distinction for KSM is that he was captured on the battlefield by our military.  In such, a military tribunal meeting the requirements of the Geneva Convention should be the manner in which he is prosecuted.  It is a simple fact that America is at war with Islamic terrorism which crosses many borders.  I do not feel it is appropriate to read Miranda rights to those that we capture on the battlefield.  In addition, we should treat them as POWs and follow the Geneva Convention.  If they are guilty of crimes of war, then we already have the means to prosecute.

On the other hand, from what I have heard, the treatment of those at GITMO may certainly have crossed the bounds of the Geneva Convention which will be a great detriment to our own troops over the years.  At this point, taking KSM to NY or where ever it is that he is tried in a civilian court is equally troubling in other ways. Military justice is an acceptable manner in which to try war related crimes.  The decision to treat as enemy combatants outside of the Geneva Convention by the prior administration and the current decision to try him in our civilian courts is likewise another political decision.  The entire process has been mired in politics in both the Bush and now in the Obama administrations.

[Jean]

Do you remember seeing a journalist having his throat cut while he begged for his life? A journalist!!!!!! These people are animals. They should be tried and executed at Gitmo. Not in the US. That would be a mockery.

[MooseMom]

I understand the reasoning of those who want to turn this into a military exercise.  I understand the temptation to get mired in the semantics of "war".  I also understand the political wrangling.  I also know for a fact that no one with any decision-making power is going to call me and ask me for my opinion, but since this is merely an online discussion, my opinion is what the rest of you will get.  LOL!

We all want the same thing.  How to achieve it is what is debatable.

The 9/11 terrorists crossed our borders, used our domestic airlines and killed people on American soil.  To try them where they committed such an attrocity is entirely appropriate.  I don't want them scuttled to some secret Gitmo-like hellhole and tried behind closed doors.  I do not want to militarize the American legal process.  It would be an insult to the American people and to our laws and our Constitution to have the 9/11 terrorists tried by any institution other than the American people, our laws and our Constitution.  Do all of you really believe that we do not deserve this?  Why are you all so concerned about what the terrorists may or may not deserve?  Why do all of you leave the American people out of the legal process?  We have tried and convicted terrorists in the past, so why is there suddenly this sentiment behind not following legal precedent?  Why is there suddenly this dismissal of our Constitution? 

[MooseMom]

Do you remember seeing a journalist having his throat cut while he begged for his life? A journalist!!!!!! These people are animals. They should be tried and executed at Gitmo. Not in the US. That would be a mockery.

That journalist was not murdered on American soil, and to have found the murderer and have him extradited would have been legally impossible.  These 9/11 animals murdered people in our own homeland.  To have them sent somewhere else to be tried would be the mockery.

There are many, many, many animals already tried, convicted and imprisoned here in the US. We kill some of them via death penalty legislation.  Our legal system is very well equipped to deal with the worst of the worst. 

If you want terrorists who have attacked US military installations overseas to be tried in a military tribunal, I get that.  But 9/11 is vastly different.  This is not about what ther terroists deserve; it is what the American people deserve that most concerns me.

[MooseMom]

Hemodoc, I am not sure that it is a "simple fact " that we are at war with Islamic terrorism.  I do not recall Congress making a formal declaration of war as required by our Constitution.  But somehow our Constitution has been conveniently reduced to an afterthought when it comes to this "war", and that's where the danger posed by terrorists rears its ugly head.   When we allow foreign terrorists and their threats and their video tapes and their web sites scare us into abandoning our laws and into dismissing our Constitution in favor of military tribunals, then they have defeated us.

Our politicians have declared "war" so that they can conveniently toss about terms like "enemy combatant", so you are right...this is all about politics, nothing else.  KSM will be tried somehow, somewhere by someone and will be tossed into jail or will be executed.  Justice will be served one way or another.  I personally do not care so much which venue is "appropriate": "appropriate" is an inadequate criteria.  I viscerally believe that we, the American people, deserve to try him ourselves.  The military exercised their role in capturing the man; the military should now hand him to us and let us punish him.  Tell me why I am wrong to believe this way.

[BigSky]

Hemodoc, I am not sure that it is a "simple fact " that we are at war with Islamic terrorism.  I do not recall Congress making a formal declaration of war as required by our Constitution.  But somehow our Constitution has been conveniently reduced to an afterthought when it comes to this "war", and that's where the danger posed by terrorists rears its ugly head.   When we allow foreign terrorists and their threats and their video tapes and their web sites scare us into abandoning our laws and into dismissing our Constitution in favor of military tribunals, then they have defeated us.

Our politicians have declared "war" so that they can conveniently toss about terms like "enemy combatant", so you are right...this is all about politics, nothing else.  KSM will be tried somehow, somewhere by someone and will be tossed into jail or will be executed.  Justice will be served one way or another.  I personally do not care so much which venue is "appropriate": "appropriate" is an inadequate criteria.  I viscerally believe that we, the American people, deserve to try him ourselves.  The military exercised their role in capturing the man; the military should now hand him to us and let us punish him.  Tell me why I am wrong to believe this way.

Despite what you think the terrorists are indeed organized.  They organization is on the basis of cells instead of one concentrated military structure.   Its that false belief that they are not organized that lead to us not fighting terrorists in the 90's and enabled 9/11 to happen.

Also the Constitution does not say that a certain form or saying must be followed to declare war.  When Congress authorizes the President to take military action against terrorists,  that is a declaration of war.

Its a false belief to  think that we our dismissing our Constitution by trying such terrorists by military tribunals.    Fact of the matter George Washington was the First to use military tribunals.

[Hemodoc]

Dear MooseMom,

First of all, the Afghan war was in direct response to 911.  We are still fighting that war, so that is evidence of being in war with Islamic extremists. 

Secondly, the issues that will come to pass if KSM is tried as a civilian will have to do with rules of evidence.  In addition, through the discovery process, important connections could be exposed.  Lastly, it truly will give KSM the spotlight to speak of the evils of America before the world.  Further, it will cost what ever city he is tried hundreds of millions of dollars for providing him with security.

On the other hand, KSM was at war in Afghanistan against the American troops that caught him.  Just makes sense to let the military finish what they started.

[MooseMom]

I am not afraid of "rules of evidence".  That's what the American people expect.

I am also not afraid of KSM badmouthing the US or having a platform from which to spout his venom.  If the words of a single man serve to mobilize all Muslims to destroy our country, again, our country is in deep trouble.  These people have many platforms from which to issue their threats.

The issue of cost is a red herring.  Could you please tell me why we have been able to try terrorists in the US courts up to now, but this trial for KSM is some sort of special case?

We have had a "war on drugs" for as long as I can remember, yet drug runners and murderers are routinely tried in civil courts and incarcerated in prisons all over the country.  The soldiers in the drug armies are armed to the teeth and are vastly more organized than Islamic extremists.  More Americans have been murdered during the "war on drugs" than during the "war on terrorism".  Again, the words used serve only to advance the political agendas of certain people with certain worldviews. 

[MooseMom]

That "important connections may be disclosed" is yet another red herring.  We have plenty of undercover agents who work to expose criminal activities, yet those "important connections" ie the identities of said agents are protected during their testimony.  Military tribunals are not the only way to protect sensitive information.  That is routinely done in our civil court.

If we are legally "at war" with Muslim extremists, why do we not have our military in the streets of Bradford or the East End of London or in Bali?  The citizens in those countries see those terrorists tried in their civil courts.  Members of the IRA were tried before civil judges; I remember because I lived in London during many of those trials.  There was certainly a "war" there.

It is not false belief to desire to see KSM tried according to the ideals of the Constitution.  If the whole idea behind this "war" is to protect the Constitution, then make that document worth protecting.  It is strong enough to withstand the trial of a terrorist.  We do not NEED the military to try him.  He needs to be tried by the people.  You can argue that it is legally appropriate to try him in a military tribunal, and I won't bother arguing with that.  But the trial of this man is a highly symbolic issue, and we need to be seen as a people who adhere to our ideals of democracy OF THE PEOPLE.  A military tribunal does not represent THE PEOPLE; it represents ONLY the MILITARY, and it is detrimental to what this country stands for to try him in this way.
 

[MooseMom]

Just wanted to say thanks for a very interesting discussion.  We all have our opinions and they are not going to change, which is just fine.  I am sure that one way or another, KSM will get his due, and that's all that matters.  No one in this country can agree on anything, anymore, whether it is how to try a terrorist or even how to remember those who were killed in 9/11.  Can you believe that all these years later, people are still bickering about what kind of memorial to erect?  As far as I am concerned, it will not be terrorists who destroy this country, it will be we ourselves who have no interest in finding a consensus about anything.  Our government is grinding to a complete halt, and it is all our fault because since ours is supposed to be government of the people, by the people and for the people, then we the people are to blame.  It's become all about who wins and who loses and nothing more.  We can't educate our kids and we can't ensure that our people have access to affordable health care.  We try to rebuild nations whose cultures we know nothing about and about which we do not care to learn.  I am not sure that our precious way of life is worth the sacrifice of thousands of men and women in Godforsaken parts of the world.  We are unwilling to sacrifice anything to ensure that our fellow Americans have good education, food, shelter and health care, yet we expect our soldiers to sacrifice their lives just so that we have the freedom to bicker amongst ourselves about which people get to have which advantages in life.  I'm just sad and sick and oh so discouraged.

[Hemodoc]

Dear MooseMom,

In fact, our country is in trouble.  The issues of preserving our constitution are not dependent on civilian trials for those in GITMO.  Costs to a city and a nation in serious trouble are not red herrings at all.  Understanding that America faces a foe that is essentially against us starting from the issue of our support of Israel as well as our two wars in Islamic nations.  Well actually 3 if we count the first Gulf War.  So, yes, there has been a "war on drugs" but that is not the same as those set on destroying us.  The drug folks are out to make money.  The terrorists wish to destroy America.  It is interesting that so many simply do not recognize that we are at war with a very determined foe is not prudent.  The issues of propaganda are a real part of this war against terrorism which does bring to the forefront the issue of giving them the worlds platform. 

Now, since when is a military court not justice?  Likewise, for our servicemen, they are tried by military tribunals under our constitution.  I served in our military for 9 years and swore to uphold and defend the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic.  Military tribunals in themselves are not some sort of kangaroo court.  The fact that the military has taken this oath and has defended the constitution in capturing a sworn enemy of the United States, I believe that we should have treated them as POWs under the Geneva Convention.  In such, the correct manner is a Military Tribunal as has been done for centuries.  The most noted are the military tribunals for the Nazis of WWII.  There are internationally recognized methods of trying war criminals which is the contention against KSM and his supporters.  If the civilians wish to prosecute Islamic terrorists, then let them risk their own lives and go capture them first.

Lastly, I believe that the issue of water boarding has been a great detriment to America and was unwise in my opinion.  The fact that America has chosen to treat them as enemy combatants instead of POWs is troubling.  In addition, the Patriot Act could allow American citizens to be tried as enemy combatants as well.  If you wish to consider the encroachment upon our constitutional rights,  a much better discussion could be held over the Patriot Act instead of a distorted discussion on KSM who was captured in a military theatre undergoing military actions against the US military.  The entire issues have been conflated beginning with the entire manner in which they were categorized.  If they were seen as POWs, it would be an entirely moot issue as far as prosecution goes, it would be by military tribunal.  This entire episode goes back to the enemy combatant status of Yassir Hamdi and Jose Padilla which is a very scary grab at constitutional rights.  So my objections to the civilian trial entails all of these issues as well.

Nevertheless, it appears to be a moot issue since the current administration will likely go the military tribunal route in the end.  We will see in the next couple of months.  But the likelihood of civilian trials will grow dimmer I suspect and rightly so for a variety of reasons.

[BigSky]

It is not false belief to desire to see KSM tried according to the ideals of the Constitution.  If the whole idea behind this "war" is to protect the Constitution, then make that document worth protecting.  It is strong enough to withstand the trial of a terrorist.  We do not NEED the military to try him.  He needs to be tried by the people.  You can argue that it is legally appropriate to try him in a military tribunal, and I won't bother arguing with that.  But the trial of this man is a highly symbolic issue, and we need to be seen as a people who adhere to our ideals of democracy OF THE PEOPLE.  A military tribunal does not represent THE PEOPLE; it represents ONLY the MILITARY, and it is detrimental to what this country stands for to try him in this way.

Al-Qaeda is indeed a military institution.  It declared war on the US.  As such when Al-Qaeda violates the laws of war, IE deliberately attacking civilians,  jurisdiction falls to the military to try these individuals.  Any member of that group or its associated groups can and should be tried by the military whether they are a citizen or not.  One does not get to be part of a military groups that kills innocent civilians and then tries to hide behind the status that they are a citizen and should not be subject to military law for their actions.

Fact of the matter is KSM never set foot in the US to commit his acts of war on the civilian population,  so the best a civilian court could do would be to try to extradite him.   However since his is a member of a military force he can be captured and easily tried by the military for violations of the laws of war.





The fuss over waterboarding is a joke.  Its hardly torture.

Hell people go in for Cystoscopies all the time and that is far worse that waterboarding.

[Bill Peckham]

I think the question should be to compare using a criminal court (civil courts are something else) to using a military process.

I think it is to our advantage to deal with them as routinely as possible i.e. through the federal criminal court system. It's better for US soft power, the criminal court system has a better record of success, and it would belittle the enemy. I think treating them as thugs is helpful, even as we hunt them through every means available.

That said circumstances matter - be pragmatic and follow the rule of law. I don't accept that a criminal trial represents a security danger. As far as cost - a well run trial would benefit the military more than any expensive piece of hardware would.

[MooseMom]

Yes, Bill...sorry, that's what I meant.  "Civil court" was a misnomer.  I meant "criminal court" as you outlined.  I like the idea of "belittling the enemy".  Putting them before a military tribunal somehow elevates them.

[Hemodoc]

I think the question should be to compare using a criminal court (civil courts are something else) to using a military process.

I think it is to our advantage to deal with them as routinely as possible i.e. through the federal criminal court system. It's better for US soft power, the criminal court system has a better record of success, and it would belittle the enemy. I think treating them as thugs is helpful, even as we hunt them through every means available.

That said circumstances matter - be pragmatic and follow the rule of law. I don't accept that a criminal trial represents a security danger. As far as cost - a well run trial would benefit the military more than any expensive piece of hardware would.

Bill, part of the issue is how to prepare a civilian prosecution while still on the battlefield.  Reading Miranda rights while the enemy is still shooting simply presents practical dangers to the soldiers in the field.  The rules of engagement are already quite constrained in the attempt to win the hearts of those we are trying to "protect" from the Taliban.

The fact remains that we have an extended history of prosecuting effectively and with due justice through the military tribunals.  The prosecution of the Nazi's is perhaps the greatest example of that.  However, we adhered to the Geneva Convention in so doing.  When you have mere seconds to make decisions on the battlefield which will mean the difference of life and death, the sort of hesitation that could be present to make sure that a technicality does not allow the bad guy to get off at a later date is too big a burden to place upon our young soldiers.  If we are going to turn the battlefield into an extension of our civilian justice system, the constraints upon an already constrained military would be quite too much.

Once again, not treating those on the battlefield as POWs instead of enemy combatants is in my opinion where the entire process fell apart in the first place which then brought them out from under the rules of the Geneva Convention.  Although water boarding is not in any manner at the level of torture that bamboo under the fingernails and other sorts of torture that Americans suffered at the hand of the Viet Cong was, in my opinion it still makes America loose ground in the eyes of the world.  If America looses its moral ground, then we have already lost the war.

Now taking those captured on the battlefield, taking them to the site of the 911 attack, and placing them in a civilian court does not send any message of deterrence to those still fighting against us.  A better message in my opinion would be to reinstate the rules of the Geneva Convention for all held in GITMO and continue the long held traditions of prosecuting war criminals under recognized international laws.  Taking KSM to NY does not undo the damage of not adhering to the Geneva Convention in the first place.  Having served in the military for 9 years and having carried a Geneva Convention card during that time, there is much to be lost if we abandon this old but tried and true system.  Taking KSM to NY in a criminal court does not restore that which was lost when they were called enemy combatants outside of the Geneva Convention.  Once again, it places an additional burden upon the young troops in harms way.  It just doesn't get us where we need to be.