Did you read all of becks other link here? They plan to admit they did it and then try to rationalize it; how can anyone think that will harm US? When they admit to the bombing in open court pretty much any chance of overturning the verdict on any basis will disappear. Not that there's much chance of that anyway, but the thing so often forgotten is that the reason verdicts get overturned on "technicalities" is usually that law enforcement and prosecutors were so casually cavalier in their investigation, arrest, detention, interrogation and/or prosecution of suspects that they ruined a perfectly good case by presuming them guilty until proven innocent.

Hence my citation of OJ: Yes, I'm unhappy he beat the murder rap, because I think he's guilty as homemade sin, but I'm just as unhappy LAPD and Marcia Clark largely beat the rap FOR him. They had DNA evidence; they mishandled and contaminated it with other DNA. They had a glove from the crime scene; they didn't bother recording it as evidence until long after the crime scene had ceased to be secure. They had an experienced and intelligent investigating officer; his own former colleagues testified he'd used racist and bigoted language in their presence. That's precisely what I DON'T want repeated here, but this whole "now that we've apprehended the criminals let's execute them and justify it later" attitude is just a redux of that. We can't overplay our hand, but the contract can still be defeated if we break enough rules to get the whole thing thrown out entirely.

As to the other, soldiers are tried in military courts and civilians in civilian ones. If these people had been classified POWs I'd have no objection to a tribunal or even, given they were armed and out of uniform in enemy territory, summary execution as spies and/or saboteurs. Remember, I still consider the war in Afghanistan a perfectly legitimate war against a state furthering its ends through terror, and that puts Al Qaeda on the same level as anyone else operating on behalf of one nation against and within another. That's exactly what we should've done, but we haven't, though it's not too late if we're big enough to say, "we goofed" then send them off to tribunals and nearly certain execution.

However, we've gone out of our way to deny they're POWs while simultaneously denying them status as civilians; when it was learned the designation "enemy combatant" still didn't mean we could treat them as we pleased, we repeatedly redefined the term (even though it's already defined for us by treaties we've signed) until it did. If you want to classify them as soldiers or spies and treat them that way, fine; if you want to classify them as civilians and treat them that way, also fine. As others have noted, allowing "any person [to be] punish[ed] as a principal under this chapter who commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission " means you can give money to some Muslim "feed the children" program and wind up in Gitmo if someone finds out later they've given any money to terrorism. And, assuming you ever get a trial, the burden of proof is on you.

Also, let's not pretend giving them civilian trials means they'll be released if acquitted. Jose Padilla had terrorist charges DROPPED but he'll be in prison till he dies. Despite being a US citizen. Under "PATRIOT" ANYONE can be held indefinitely without charge, and even if charged and acquitted by a tribunal (which they are not required to receive any more than a civilian trial) need never be released. They're not going to "get away" man. Barring an act of God (not self-appointed human agents of His) they'll be dead before the decade.