This is a comment made on another blog I read that slapped me back to reality:

No one is afraid of trying KSM for his misdeeds, but this is not a trial for what he did when he murdered 3000 of our countrymen. This is a show trial to put everything done to protect this country on trial; even the former administration. This isn’t about justice, its about taking this country down another notch to prove to the rest of the world that we are as worthless as they are.

After all, cowtowing to the enemy seems to have become the popular thing to do.
Foxx

That was then; this is now. And further: what if any one of these defendants are found not guilty? What then?

This is quite terrible precedent to set.

BZ

I agree we are a nation of laws. I as an American live under the protection of our constitution. KSM did not and does not. He is not an American; in fact his admitted goal is to kill as many Americans as possible. He does not get to enjoy the same rights as I do.

You and I both served to defend the rights of every American; we did not however, serve to offer those same rights to our enemies.

It is an absurd notion to think we offer “equal rights” to every living soul on the planet. We do not and we should not. We are a sovereign nation unto ourselves. We offer a constitution filled with rights and freedoms for those who chose to live by our laws. Those who seek to destroy us will be destroyed.

Honestly, I don’t understand why you can’t see this difference between Americans and America’s enemies.

Oh, and thanks for comparing me to a terrorist. Your welcome is waning.

So you say.

Think about the implications of the Executive defying SCOTUS. Have the mil tribunals only to be appealed to SCOTUS?

Honestly, I’ve never seen so much emotion – except from jihadi rage boys.

Either we are a nation of laws or we are not.

“…That’s precisely what happened during the civilian New York trial of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers. The prosecution was forced to turn over to the defense a list of two hundred unindicted co-conspirators, including the name Osama bin Laden. “Within ten days, a copy of that list reached bin Laden in Khartoum,” wrote former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, the presiding judge at that trial, “letting him know that his connection to that case had been discovered.”
Finally, there’s the moral logic. It’s not as if Holder opposes military commissions on principle. On the same day he sent KSM to a civilian trial in New York, Holder announced he was sending Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, mastermind of the attack on the USS Cole, to a military tribunal.

By what logic? In his congressional testimony Wednesday, Holder was utterly incoherent in trying to explain. In his Nov. 13 news conference, he seemed to be saying that if you attack a civilian target, as in 9/11, you get a civilian trial; a military target like the Cole, and you get a military tribunal.

What a perverse moral calculus. Which is the war crime — an attack on defenseless civilians or an attack on a military target such as a warship, an accepted act of war which the U.S. itself has engaged in countless times?

By what possible moral reasoning, then, does KSM, who perpetrates the obvious and egregious war crime, receive the special protections and constitutional niceties of a civilian courtroom, while he who attacked a warship is relegated to a military tribunal?…”

SCOTUS was wrong. The issue is not human rights, but Constitutional rights that are reserved for those who live under the authority of our laws. It is stupid to assume human rights are equivelant to US Constitutional rights.

And based on the first eleven months of this administration, I am worried Kris. I am worried that common sense will be forfieted for the “rule of law” and we will relive another 9/11… or worse.