If you really support the Constitution clap your hands!

I think I don't write as much of late because while I like to write about politics, I don't like the way politics are talked about these days. And by these days I mean since about 1994. Yeah, that includes even when I do it.

But I'll continue to give it a go:

If you are fit to be tied over 9/11 terrorists being tried in our civil courts, imagine how fit to be tied we all would be if or when those military tribunals were proven to be unconstitutional. Listen, we have a complicated system. Sometimes it doesn't all fit within a 30-second sound bite, 5-minute segment of puerile punditry, or even an hour program. And we all know that anything longer than an hour is far too much a strain on the public's attention span, so all news/information/opinion/infotainment must be chopped into bite-sized pieces of meat and fed very carefully to people since no one knows the mental equivalent of the Heimlich maneuver.

From the above-linked op-ed:

The casual use of the word "war" has lead to a mentality among the public and even in the government that the rules of war could apply to those held at Guantanamo. But the rules of war apply only to those involved in a lawfully declared war, and not to something that the government merely calls a war. Only Congress can declare war — and thus trigger the panoply of the government's military powers that come with that declaration. Among those powers is the ability to use military tribunals to try those who have caused us harm by violating the rules of war.

Now, the question that I haven't seen answered by supporters, critics, commentators, or government officials, is why some in federal courts and not others? It appears that the ones to be tried in military tribunals are ones who attacked military targets (USS Cole) while the ones attacking civilian or non-military government targets get the federal trial. That seems like a fair divide to me, as long as it holds up under Constitutional scrutiny. The author of the op-ed disagrees, but I disagree. Point by point (my comments in brackets) from his paragraph detailing this:

That the target of the Cole attackers was military property manned by the Navy offers no constitutional reason for a military trial. [I don't know about this, is there precedent either way?] In the 1960s, when Army draft offices and college ROTC facilities were attacked and bombed, those charged were quite properly tried in federal courts. [Those charged were also American citizens, were they not? There is no legal precedent to deny an American citizen their rights under the Constitution regardless of their crime. And if you bring up Lincoln's repeal of habeas corpus during the Civil War, please go back to history class. That was eventually ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court] And when Timothy McVeigh blew up a federal courthouse in Oklahoma City [also an American citizen]; and Omar Abdel Rahman attempted in 1993 to blow up the World Trade Center, which housed many federal offices [not a military target]; and when Zacarias Moussaoui was accused in the 9/11 attacks, [also an American citizen] all were tried in federal courts. The "American Taliban," John Walker Lindh, [also an American citizen] and the notorious would-be shoe bomber, Richard Reid, [also an American citizen] were tried in federal courts. Even the "Ft. Dix Six," five of whom were convicted in a plot to invade a U.S. Army post in New Jersey, were tried in federal court [at least one of these men was an American citizen and the charges were conspiring and plotting. Might be difficult to retain the American citizen's rights while dealing with a military tribunal]. And the sun still rose on the mornings after their convictions. 

And the sun will still rise after the terrorist suspects are tried in federal courts.

So in short, it looks like it breaks down this way, for as long as we are not officially at Constitutionally defined war:

• Foreigners attacking non-military targets will get federal trials
  
• American citizens get American citizen trials no matter what
  
• Foreigners attacking military targets will get military trials
  

I think that's pretty fair way to break it down, get the bad guys, and make sure it all stands up to Constitutional scrutiny.

We cannot risk having a trial of these people be ruled unconstitutional. We have enough constitutional problems already with how they are going to be tried after being tortured. These trials will be kangaroo courts anyway, completely rigged to ensure convictions. We wouldn't be bringing them to trial if they weren't. But as long as they are rigged in a fashion that upholds the Constitution, I'm kind of fine with that.

We do not need military tribunals to be kangaroo courts. We might need them again if we have to officially declare war again. We don't need them tainted by the perception that they are nothing more than an end run around the Constitution when we don't feel like following our own laws and precedents. We can't shout from the roof tops that we are a nation of laws, rights, and freedoms, and then discard them when we don't like it.