It's the fact that trying an enemy combatant who was captured overseas in a criminal court in America raises a whole bunch of problems for me in fighting this war.

Like I said earlier, I'm an Army interrogator. If I'm in Afghanistan, and every detainee that comes into my booth has the option to be tried in a US court, with all the rules and restrictions that puts on me, how can I possibly be expected to do my job as well as I can? Will I have to read him his rights and have a lawyer present during every interrogation? Will the information I collect be admissible as evidence if I don't Mirandize him beforehand? Basically, this decision forms a precedent that is going to hang over every US intelligence professional as we go about the course of our duties, and could needlessly handcuff us in our performance. What you are suggesting amounts to limiting our warfighting capabilities in exchange for... what?

If I have two options, civilian courts or military tribunals (let's leave aside the option of declaring them all POWs and detaining them indefinitely- while infinitely preferable, we both know it isn't politically viable) one of which will hamper me in my ability to execute this war and the other of which will not, isn't that the most important issue?