Reply to comment

I'm not much of a fan of Pat Buchanan -- he's too much the left's stereotypical dyspeptic conservative, and I don't always like his very populist tone. But I think he's hit on something very important in regards to Obama's decision to send Guantanamo terrorist detainees to a civilian court in New York City.

Are we at war – or not?

For if we are at war, why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York? Why is he entitled to a presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen?

Is it possible we have done an injustice to this man by keeping him locked up all these years without trial? For that is what this trial implies – that he may not be guilty.

And if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KSM was complicit in mass murder, by what right do we send Predators and Special Forces to kill his al-Qaida comrades wherever we find them? For none of them has been granted a fair trial.

When the Justice Department sets up a task force to wage war on a crime organization like the Mafia or MS-13, no U.S. official has a right to shoot Mafia or gang members on sight. No one has a right to bomb their homes. No one has a right to regard the possible death of their wives and children in an attack as acceptable collateral damage.

Yet that is what we do to al-Qaida, to which KSM belongs.

We conduct those strikes in good conscience because we believe we are at war. But if we are at war, what is KSM doing in a U.S. court?

Buchanana has hit on the fundamental divide between most Americans and President Obama -- we believe we're in a war against enemy combatants. Obama believes terrorism should be treated as a high level crime. But the military operations of the previous administration (which Obama has not ended) tell a very different story.

If Obama really believes that Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his cohorts deserve a trial by a civilian jury, then he should withdraw our troops from the field, and give al-Qaeda a break from the war. I believe that these trials are a political sham to placate Obama's far left supporters who see men like KSM as freedom fighters, not terrorists.

Obama has also publicly stated that it was not his decision, but Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to send the detainees to a civilian court. But no serious person can imagine that Holder has that much autonomy about something so critically important.

The Guantanamo detainees should receive military trials, if that. We should treat men like KSM as enemy combatants, killing them in the battlefield, and giving them military trials and summary executions. If that sounds horrible to you, consider al-Qaeda's standard of justice. They didn't need to know much about Daniel Pearl, they just knew he was an American, and Jewish. He did not receive a trial, why should these barbarians receive one, let alone a civilian trial? Why should they receive the protections of a system they strive to destroy?