To do so can be seen as condoning future acts because, after all, America will let you spout your ideology! Come on over! Bomb us! And get to state your murderous ideology! Wow! Isn’t America magnanimous and all inclusive! Who cares if a few more citizens die for the cause of jihad!

Also, why give a foreign national the same rights as a citizen of the United States?

My thinking is that war creates a different sort of context for such acts. We–meaning human beings–seem to judge mass killings and mass destruction very differently in the context of a war than in the context of peace. Such things are expected to happen, and are rationalized by making reference to causes, ideologies, etc. There are circumstances in war that make such things lawful and excusable to people who would otherwise see them as immoral and inexcusable.

I suspect the military trial of an enemy combatant would tend to put someone more into that war context–at least in the minds of people in other parts of the world who might be looking at things from a Muslim point of view. It a subtle perceptual shift for us–he’s a terrorist murderer in either case–but one that might have major effects on perception elsewhere.

That’s why I see a certain plus to treating the guy as a civilian criminal who has planned and facilitated the mass murder of nearly 3,000 innocent civilians.

I don’t discount the complications and dangers of a civilian trial. Best case scenario would be an early guilty plea, which I think might be a possibility. As has been opined before, this isn’t your normal case of someone who wants to escape justice. He wants the credit, wants to say his piece in the spotlight, and wants his martyrdom.

You have to go bigger and deeper on both options. That’s where Graham was trying to get Holder to go to understand the administration’s decision making process.

Instead, Holder did the “I don’t know.” routine.

Question: Wouldn’t a military trial also bring out the craven act of mass murder? The MO of such an act is terrorism and is not exclusive to muslims. Point is: Did muslim jihadists declare war on the US and then act? Or was this a criminal action that could be seen as a civil court matter much like McVeigh? Was this an act of military aggression or not? Do jihadis see themselves as “soldiers” for a cause?

It’s much too complicated for the simple answer Holder and Obama are trying to get the nation to swallow.

Comment by jbjd | 2009-11-19 23:11:12

Yes, there is credible evidence of massive election fraud. Read the Complaints of Election Fraud to State Attorneys General, posted on the front of my blog. (SC is my personal favorite.)
http://jbjd.wordpress.com

People keep saying that about Obama, but they can’t give any real examples showing where he’s disregarded constitutional law. They fall back on subjective perceptions, or on some other highly questionable and totally unsubstantiated assertion.

With his predecessor, a very strong argument can be made simply by examining the Presidential Directives. The general public would be shocked sh*tless if they had any real understanding of the full implications of many of those. For a number of the past 8 years, we weren’t even living in a constitutional democracy. Many of our fundamental constitutional rights had gone straight out the window. Most people didn’t even seem to notice.

Get some perspective.

I’m not shocked by the lies and deception practiced by Obama and many in his administration but I’m appalled at how incredibly dumb they are which I guess, to quote Martha, “is a good thing”. At least they are more easily exposed in their chicanery. The “bad thing” is that there is so much “bad news” concerning this administration that it’s hard to stay on top of everything.