so now you're arguing that a civilian trial would have a greater political benefit for the Obama administration than a tribunal would?

is that really what these folks are arguing? that seems like a rather more partisan and a rather less strong argument than the moral absolutes these guys are talking about?

He is not a citizen of this country and, since we are at war (even obama finally admitted it), he should be considered an enemy combatant. Hold him until the war is over and then military or international court.

Enemy combatant, enemy combatant, enemy combatant . . .
Military court, military court, military court . . .
Mirandizing this guy may have been perhaps the single most telling act that shows how apathetic this administration is to protecting citizens from terrorist attacks. Granted, the guy got on the plane in another country because of a breakdown there, but when it comes down to it, he wanted to kill Americans and show a weakness in the system. Frankly, I think there have been too many 'oopsies' lately that make me wonder if the people that hated Bush realize that they at least knew they were safe at home.

So, I've got a question that I haven't seen answered in any of the media coverage on this.

assuming the military tribunal is not a kangaroo court, and follows valid rules of evidence, then what is the effective difference between a civilian court and a military tribunal?

if we are all in agreement that terrorists should be severely punished, then the purpose of a trial/tribunal is essentially to ensure that there is sufficient evidence for applying such a severe punishment.

In other words, to prevent disgruntled FBI agents from declaring their mother-in-laws terrorists and locking them in gitmo indefinitely.

both trials and legitimate tribunals fulfil this function, so what is everyone getting all bent out of shape over? and please, don't tell me all these big manly men like Beck, Limbaugh, and Cheney are getting their panties all in a bunch because of the symbolism over this being a military justice vs civilian justice issue. (I thought the liberals were the ones concerned with being politically correct)

so seriously, what's the difference?

but what's the difference?

specifically what rights does he get in a civilian court that he dosen't get at a valid military tribunal?

everyone gets all bent out of shape over this (on both sides) but no one on either side has been able to tell me what the effective difference is other than the symbolism.

and frankly, our country has to many serious issues to waste this much energy on BS symbolism.

I say who cares! do whatever is quicker and costs the taxpayers less money.

Any one involved in terrorism should be treated as an enemy of our country.Given a military trail and in this case be put in front of a firing squad.

We should show him the same courtesy his people would show an American that tried to blow up a plane over Mecca on the first day of Rammadan, though maybe draw the line a setting the headless corps on fire.

Convict him of 300 counts of attempted murder at 10 years per count. Let him spend time in the toughest American prisons amongst the worst of the worst and when he dies (hopefully of old age and not from being excessively sodomized) let a feral dog feed on his body and bury what is left of the remains along with the dog's droppings in a 55 gallon drum of lard. I think that would resonate appropriately within the framework of his culture. Just like in the dictionary, fear comes before respect.

Civilian trial; millions of dollars, whole streets shut down for security, loss of business, relocating a whole apartment building of people next to the court house, and a year or more long anti-american propaganda rant.

Military Tribunal; $38 for coffee and doughnuts, the base goes on alert which is good training for our troops

Because you get different rights and the way the trial is handled is different from the civilian courts. The terrorist should never have been morandized, he is a terrorist, he doesn't get the same rights as a regular citizen.

Eric Holder made a snap politically based decision that was dead wrong and he isn't man enough to admit it. Now Obama sees yet another reason for his numbers dropping into the tank and has to decide if he will throw yet another appointee under the bus. See, with a civilian trial with a gallery filled with alphabet channel "news" folks whose legs tingle when Obama speaks Bush and Cheney would be the actual defendants. With a military tribunal all he gets to do is bring the terrorists to justice. Oh Pooh!