In an Op-Ed piece written for the New York Times, Steven Simon – a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations – condemns Republicans for opposing the Obama administration’s presto chango redefinition of Jihadist warriors as mere criminals. “First, let’s dispose of the straw men. John Boehner, the Republican leader in the House, accused the Obama administration of ‘treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue’ — as though ‘law enforcement’ is an epithet.” The term “law enforcement” became an epithet by virtue of Obama’s determination to define al-Qaeda’s 9/11 sneak attack on America as a crime and not an act of war.

Since al-Qaeda and its affiliated jihadist brothers see themselves as “holy warriors,” it is nothing short of astonishing that we don’t take them at their word. According to Article 4, section 2 of the 1949 Geneva Convention:

“Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.”

In violating the rules of decency, war and the Geneva Convention, if captured jihadist are entitled to a day in court, that court should be a military tribunal.

During World War II, seven German saboteurs captured on U.S. soil (Operation Pastorius) demanded they be tried by a criminal court. The issue made it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In their 1942 Ex parte Quirin opinion, the high court ruled:

“Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.”

The court denied the unlawful combatants the protections of the U.S. Constitution and handed them over to the jurisdiction of our military. They were quickly tried and the Germans were executed.

The military tribunal process does presume defendants innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, military tribunals serve as judge and jury, where a two-thirds vote is all that is needed to convict. Previous statements and trial evidence can be admitted, and the exclusionary rule – which keeps “illegally seized evidence” out of civilian criminal courts – is allowed before a military tribunal. Though there is no appellate process, verdicts are subject to review by the Secretary of Defense. Verdicts are not final until approved by the defense secretary or the president.

Steven Simon concludes his New York Time Op-Ed piece with the same counterfeit moralizing heard from President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder:

“…A judgment in New York, where the greatest suffering was inflicted, will remind us…of the narrow viciousness of the terrorists’ cause and of the enduring strength of our own values.”

By according foreign Islamic war criminals the Constitutional protections of our criminal courts, the Obama administration abandoned the duty of all human beings to make moral distinctions. In not recognizing Khalid Shaikh Mohammed as a soldier in Hitlerian violation of the rules of war, the Obama administration took the moral coward’s way out by redefining terrorist warriors as mere domestic criminals. Far from being a display of “strength” and “values,” it underscored what men of low character occupy Washington’s panicle of power.

– Mr. Curmudgeon