... So tell me, why didn't President Bush move with the military tribunals of these people during that time? Oh that's right, the Bush administration tried to prosecute them in military tribunals but wasn't able to come up with a set of rules that were deemed constitutional. As a result, six years after Mohammed was apprehended, he still hasn't been convicted!

A civilian trial is the best chance of ensuring conviction and sentencing. I don't consider that a problem. I consider it progress. We are one step closer to the end of this guy's story. Remember, too, that the Republican senators who are crying loudest now about this civilian trial were the ones who precluded the use of military tribunals by insisting that they be constitutionally unfair to defendants.



Studying terrorism law, I am not aware of any judge, anywhere, who is eager to pervert the law to give Mohammed or any other terrorist a break. The idea that the federal courts are soft on terrorism is unfair to the hundreds of jurists who have repeatedly endorsed government policy on terrorism, both before and after the 2001 attacks. Capital murder suspects get off on "technicalities" far less often than you see in prime time. And even if Mohammed is somehow acquitted, which isn't going to happen, the feds will then immediately pick him up and put him back in the military brig.

Yes, Mohammed might well try to turn it into political theater. But he will mostly fail. There are many rules in place to ensure that Mohammed behaves in court. There is upside here, too. It seems likely, given Mohammed's in-court conduct at Guantanamo Bay, that he will proudly declare in front of judge and jury his allegiance to al-Qaeda and his involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks. If this occurs, heck, it will make it easier for jurors to convict him and for the appellate courts to endorse his sentence.



Well, trials cost money, that's a fact of life. What's important is bringing this whole thing to a close after 6 years.