Let me start off by stating my opinion on this. I don't know much about the law side of this. I don't know what constitutes military tribunals vs. criminal court, and I don't care (at least when it comes to this post). So if you want to spout off some blithering crap about it, save it. As far as I am concerned, I believe that the terrorists at GITMO should be tried in military tribunals. After all, Obama decided to keep on the practice (to his credit), and who else would qualify if not Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (here after KSM, that is such a pain to type out).

The intention of this post is to sort through the pros and cons, since whether KSM and the other terrorists SHOULD be tried in civillian court or not is irrellavant, because its happening. Can't change it, and so we analyze it.

The neutral aspect of this decision is the fact that these guys will almost 100% be tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. Unless Johnny Cochran is their defendant (if the bomb vest doesn't fit, you must acquit!) no New Yorker is going to let these guys walk. And if for some reason only Socialists are pulled for that jury pool, they would be torn to shreds outside of the courtroom.

So, the cons. The biggest con of all would be the precedent that this would set. From here on out, would we be charging prisoners of war right along with manslaughter cases? While this may be a bit of a reach, it certainly isn't something not to consider. Also, what new breed of soul-less lawyers would this create? I joked above about Cochran, but I can bet there are at least a couple dozen men just like Cochran smacking their lips and drooling over the prospect of making their name as a defense attorney. After all, if you can get KSM down to a third degree murder charge, what a name that would give you! Also, the aspect of putting these guys into a prison on American soil. Do I think that the jail would become a prime terrorist target? I don't know. I have my doubts, but then again I didn't think planes would be flown into our buildings either.

The pros. The first and major pro is America showing that we are a more civilized country. By trying them and giving them their day in court, it is mostly symbolism. Obama flat out said that they would be convicted and killed (literally, he said those words), which does show some of what I had said above about no sane person NOT coming to that verdict, but it also shows that we can do things democratically with out stooping to the terrorists level. It shows that, as a nation, we aren't blood thirsty for revenge. Well...I am, but that kind of leads me to my favorite pro.

And that is the HELL that the terrorists would go through while in American prisons. Can you even imagine it?! Rapists and child molesters are beaten, sodomized, and killed in prison on a regular basis, because even thieves and murderers have some kind of standard. A guy that planned the deaths of thousands of innocents? Ohhhh man. And don't even say "Well, the guards won't let that happen", because I have news for you: the guards let that happen all the time. After a couple of these guys die because of vigilante justice, the rest will serve out whats left of their time in a hold somewhere far away from the other inmates. That would be a huge step down from their lifestyle at GITMO, and quite frankly that would make me smile.

So, those are only a few of the pros and cons I thought up. Any others, pro or con?