There was no attack. I posed a question. I didn’t say that you suck or that your momma…

I did say earlier that I was going to have to think about your question. I’m still thinking and researching. I think that the underlying principle of your argument is wrong because I think that there is plenty of evidence that KSM is guilty without using anything that he said while he was in our custody. Therefore, the torture is not relevant. 

So you refuse to address the issues therein? Attack the messenger instead of addressing the issues (ad hominem)? 

Answer me using whatever source you wish.

I was unaware that we were on our own in this forum.

I had thought you better than the average progressive who refuses to engage in a debate.

Here are some (but far from all) of the practical problems presented by trying in a civil criminal court an individual (1) who was captured overseas, (2) had evidence against him collected using covert means, with (3) no chain of evidence or custody, and (4) was harshly and physically interrogated with (5) all witnesses and methods being secret.

The greatest danger posed in the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) isn’t that he will go free. The greatest danger is that he will be convicted and that during his appeals the courts will ratify all of the extraordinary measures used to capture and convict him. The great danger is that the courts will ratify the rough, inaccurate and ambiguous norms of martial law as applying to all civil criminal trials.

After a couple of decades of these court decisions reverberating throughout the legal system, we could end up living under de facto martial law.

The Constitution recognizes only two types of trials, the civil and the military. The Fifth Amendment states:

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Until the Obama administration overturned two centuries of precedence, America had two systems of justice, the civil and the military. The military system played a very small and focused role. It served rough justice in the chaos of war and in places like the open sea in which no nation’s law governed.

For over two hundred years, those captured by the military outside the civil boundaries or caught carrying out military action on US soil, were tried by military tribunals. Up until the 1950s the military used drum head trials to convict and execute those found fighting in violation of custom and international law. Pirates were often hung at sea within hours of their capture. In WWII, anyone fighting disguised as a civilian faced summary execution with the approval of just three officers.

For over two hundred years we were careful to keep a firewall between civil and martial law. We did so because civil and martial law are polar opposites. Civil law is focused on protecting the rights of the accused against the overwhelming power of the state. When there is doubt, the accused walks free. Martial law is focused on imposing a minimal order on bloody chaos. It was focused on allowing the military to complete its mission and win wars. When there is doubt, the accused is presumed guilty.

Now, Obama wants to bring martial law into a civil court room in Manhattan. In order to let a civil conviction of KSM stand, the higher courts will have to overturn almost all the current constitutional protections of the accused.

They will have to overturn the requirement for Miranda warnings. They will have to overturn the Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination. They will have to overturn the right to face one’s accusers and to examine all evidence and evidence gathering methods.

Do you see why it is such a disaster?

The Obama Administration may intend the trial as a bludgeon to attack the previous administration, but the repercussions will go much further than that.

Also, if I were an attorney for KSM, I would request a change of venue from Manhattan (McViegh was granted one during his trial), and I would not allow anyone on the jury who watched coverage of the attacks on TV for the same reason. 

Also…were I a member of Al-Qaeda…I would NOT let this court cast pass by without launching some number of attacks during the proceedings. 

There is much, much more. It will be one of the biggest mistakes of the Obama Administration…