Now this comes as a surprise to all of us who distinctly remember Obama promising the American people that people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be given “full MILITARY trials”:

The vast majority of the folks in Guantanamo, I suspect, are there for a reason… I think there are a lot of dangerous people. Particularily dangerous are people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Ironically, those are the guys are going to get real military procedures…

Now let me just address a couple points that have been made on the other side. You’ll hear opponents of this amendment say that it will give all kidns of rights to terrorist masterminds like KSM. I want to repeat… that is not true. The irony of the underlying bill as it is written… is that someone like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is gonna get, basically, a full military trial…with all the bells and whistles… because the feeling is that he is guilty of a war crime and to do otherwise might violate some of our agreements under the Geneva Convention.

I think that is good that were goin to provide him with some proceedure and some process…. Justice will be carried out in his case.

Now, being the critical thinker that I am… a number of questions naturally occur to me.  First, Why are we only trying some (not all) of the Guantanamo terrorists in federal courts in New York?  I mean, if they are proper for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, why are they improper for the rest of the gang?  Secondly (and related to the first question), why are we only trying the terrorists that we are confident will result in a “successful” outcome?  I mean, if you think that the civilian justice system offers the fairest sort of justice… then wouldn’t you want to try suspects who have the weakest cases in civilian courts (to give them the most possible protections) rather than the strongest cases–the cases we are already were guaranteed to win??  And furthermore, if we are guaranteed to win our case against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, why try him in a civilian court in the first place — especially when it is widely understood that a civilian trial of this sort is all but certain to publicize (and do irreversible damage) many of our national security (which is the very reason for military tribunals in the first place).  Finally, why do this when the military system has all the ample “bells and whistles” Obama assured us was good enough for  ”dangerous people” like  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

Well, I’m afraid only one explanation makes any sense:  Obama didn’t really think Military tribunals were fair back in 2006 and he doesn’t now.  He made us all believe a bill that granted constitutional rights to terrorists wouldn’t disturb the vital role of military tribunals– all the while demeaning those who’s criticism of the bill is now entirely validated by Obama’s own actions.  Obama is doing this for no other reason than to placate the far-left in this country who want to see the US government, the CIA, and the US Military on trial.  Obama wouldn’t dare put a terrorist on the stand and risk the public backlash should there be an acquittal.  Of course he wouldn’t… and that’s why he’s only bringing the “safest” cases… so he can claim the federal courts work for terrorists while making each and every one of the CIA’s practices and techniques front page material for the New York Times.

Anthony Dick summed it up well over at “The Corner”:

The strange thing about the Obama administration’s decision to hold these civilian al-Qaeda trials is that the project is flawed even based on the premises of its staunchest defenders: They talk about due process and the rule of law, but the trials can’t possibly provide anything close to the level of objectivity that applies in an ordinary criminal-law setting. There is no way the defendants will get an impartial jury in New York, and there is no way the government will actually release the terrorists if they are acquitted. Thus the courtroom proceedings in Manhattan will be, in a very real sense, show trials. They are designed purely for PR purposes, so that the Obama administration can pay lip service to the ideal of due process while implicitly rebuking the Bush administration for failing to respect the rule of law.

Meanwhile, it is the Obama administration that is truly making a sham out of the rule of law, by politicizing the trial process and pretending that these enemy combatants will be getting normal, neutral, dispassionate trials, as if the larger strategic context of the War on Terror will not affect the judge, the jury, or the actions of the government, which is sure to retain custody of the defendants in the off chance they are acquitted.

I ask you… what other explanation is there?

According to the IG report, the agency briefed the Congressional Intelligence Oversight Committees — that includes Speaker Pelosi — in the fall of 2002, as well as in February and March of 2003, and continued to do so thereafter. The IG report states that none of the congressional participants — that includes Speaker Pelosi — expressed any concerns about the EITs or the program itself. Unless were resigned to the premise that its routine for the Speaker of the House to lie to the American people about matters of national security, this is pretty serious stuff. CIA interrogators are facing the prospect of financially ruinous legal fees while a special prosecutor investigates their actions. Eric Holder may prosecute these individuals [i.e. CIA officers] for taking actions that members of congress — that includes Speaker Pelosi — not only knew about, but that didnt concern them.

The piece finishes with this ‘O’ so prescient question:

If the EITs didnt bother members of congress then, why are they a problem now? Will any reporter call Pelosi on this?