I don't think anyone besides Obama believes that these show trials are a result of Bush Administration legal semantics about whether the vermin were enemy combatants or criminals or terrorists. But I also don't see why a new classification wasn't simply invented for foreign terrorist scum, something along the lines of "wild card". I don't view jihadists as "criminals" because that would imply they are merely members of society (ours) gone astray. They are not. Rather they are religiously-motivated homicide-suicides with no country overtly backing them, and no objective other than chaos. I'd rather not have these prcks relaxing into their roles like American career criminals do when caught, confident they'll have more rights than their victims. As the legal status of the these vermin should be "chew toy" the torture argument just doesn't hold water enough for a waterboarding. Since Navy SEALS are waterboarded as part of their training and the vermin were waterboarded to extract information, waterboarding cannot be considered torture for the sake of torture. Holder already tried his hand earlier in court at the Waterboarding-is-torture game and failed miserably. I'm betting few people here even knew this. The MSM didn't report it. The whole Iraq War cause-n-effect for these terrorist vermin doesn't add up. jihadist nutjobs have been around since islam's founding and in recent history alone, America has endured well-documented attacks by these animals going back to the 70s. Recently invading a country led by a dictator to remove said dictator and let a formerly enslaved people try their hand at self-governance in no way justifies a 9-11, which, of course, occurred BEFORE we went into the two recent theaters. The terrorist vermin are using the virtues of our civilization to destroy civilization. The joke's on us if we simply fail to point out to the vermin they are not legitimate critics or participants in our civilization but a cancer to be excised. Good chat to all!

Harris_Mint: "your ... argument was also made on behalf of German saboteurs during WW2. After all, the Germans were human beings so couldn't they receive American rights and trials?" ______ Certain prisoners *are* considered to captured enemy soldiers and are treated differently according to a different standard. In a declared war (such as in your example, e.g. Germany, WWII), opposing soldiers are to be treated according to the Conventions of War and generally are not even tried unless their actions raise to a level above that of an ordinary soldier fighting for his country, then they should be accorded a military trial (if it is possible to do so). The only wars we are currently engaged in are in Afganistan and Iraq, and while some of the Guantanimo prisoners were taken on the battlefield in those countries, many were not. In the instant case (KSM), the charge relates generally to terrorist activites and not war crimes, at least in the sense that he was not acting as an agent for a nation state. Unless we redefine what a "war" is, he is a criminal, not an enemy combatant (for purposes of the law) and should be tried as such. There are a number of arguments that cite the difficulties that a civil trial would encounter due to the fact that he (and many others) were treated as combatants rather than criminals at the time of his capture and during his incarceration. Such treatment would likely tend to favor the defense rather than the prosecution (something that will likely stick in everyone's craw I know that *I* would like to see him and his ilk punished), but this is the fault of the American government; we could have chosen to treat those not taken on the battlefield as criminals, but we wanted to use "extra-legal" measures in their interogations, so we only have ourselves to blame.______________ On another point, you state: "IMO when you pick up a weapon to kill random people--and these vermin didn't care how many conservatives or liberals were in the Towers--you automatically forfeit your humanity." ____ I tend to agree, however, honesty impells one to say that this is exactly (and with much more innocent death) what we did in bombing and invading Iraq. Are you willing to hold us to the same standard to which you want to hold others? ______________ Qnother issue you raise: "These trials are perhaps Obama's way of putting the Bush Administration (and CIA) on trial." _____ Pretty unlikely, though it certainly could be seen as an indictment of how the previous administration treated certain legal issues. Had the Bush Administration chosen to treat some prisoners (such as KSM) differently, the whole matter of their legal disposition would not be such a problem now. _____________ "I can't understand why any sane politician would risk his a--- for the most deservedly hated vermin in American history." It is pretty unlikely that they would go free. As a last resort, we have laws that allow us to hold non-citizens indefinitely as illegal aliens awaiting deportation. A successful defense at civil trial would only end with the defendent release into the custody of INS and the would be incarcerating, likely for life, until a nation-state could be found that would claim them *and* until we deemed it appropriate to deport them. If some state really wanted them, diplomacy could be stall actual release, virtually forever.

Vance: your eloquent argument was also made on behalf of German saboteurs during WW2. After all, the Germans were human beings so couldn't they receive American rights and trials? Common sense was more common then and after military tribunals the German vermin (sorry, couldn't resist) were executed. If those accused were American citizens I'd agree they were entitled to an American trial. Were they uniformed soldiers of another nation the Geneva Conventions would apply. These terrorist scum are neither of those. IMO when you pick up a weapon to kill random people--and these vermin didn't care how many conservatives or liberals were in the Towers--you automatically forfeit your humanity. Why would America or any other nation offer these savages the legal or moral benefits of a civilization they tried to destroy? These "trials" can only have bad outcomes in every case. It makes New Yorkers relive painful memories needlessly. It trivializes both the legal system itself and the horrendous nature of these crimes. The prosecutors are overly confident the "defendants" will be found guilty, which makes this an expensive and false "show" trial. If found guilty, these vermin will likely die of old age before getting the needle. And then there's this: what if they're found NOT GUILTY? It's entirely possible. These trials are perhaps Obama's way of putting the Bush Administration (and CIA) on trial. The whole thing is outrageous and trying to see it from Obama's point-of-view is even more bizarre. If just one vermin goes free, his career in politics is over. I can't understand why any sane politician would risk his a--- for the most deservedly hated vermin in American history.

It is the lawyers that are adamant about a civil trial and civil rights etc. Many of them are expecting to fund their early retirement with this and the incessant appeals.. A quick military trial with an armed detail waiting outside seems proper to me....

Vance_Shaw I basically agree with Harris Mint. You are correct in the large sense, but this is our country and we are the ones who have to defend the constitution. Those who seek to destroy us and have no regard for basic human rights should not have protection under the constitution and should be dealt with by military tribunal.