IMO we've done enough to place terrorist cowards on pedestals with our fear-mongering. Put this asswipe on trial in NYC, a few blocks from the WTC.

Or just keep waterboarding him, right, Marc Thiessen? ha ha

This is a great article, and very true. Yes, it will cost a lot of money for security, but these guys are worthless, and don't deserve the credit they are asking for.

Has everyone just forgot the complete complicity the US government had in 9/11 and the following cover-up investigation? We should be investigating our own government for what really happened on that day. I'm not denying that KMS was complicit in this crime, but we need to get to the very bottom of 9/11. For all you people who are going to label me as a conspiracy theorist and try to discredit me, just look at these sources:

Daniel Hopsicker- investigative journalist who went to Venice, Florida after 9/11 to look into the flight school that Mohamed Atta (supposed 9/11 ringleader and pilot) and others attended. He discovers that the flight school Atta trained at was running drugs into the country with assistance and cover from the CIA. Atta himself, according to his girlfriend that Hopsicker took testimony from, was a big drug user, totally discrediting the government line that these were Islamic fundamentalists and exposing yet again linkages between the CIA and drug running

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIbTmhmnGb4

Peter Dale Scott- has written extensively about the "deep state" and the events of 9/11. See article link below.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/22491

David Ray Griffin- has written numerous books completely shredding the official government story of 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCHN-1Yk5LI

There are many more aspects of 9/11 than those listed here, but this is a good start for anyone interested in the truth. We need to stop acting as if 9/11 is a closed case. By not acknowledging the truth about 9/11, you are complicit in it's cover-up!

Let me see if I understand correctly. War crimes trials should be reserved for major players, and mere terrorists should be shot or hanged as soon as they have been successfully interrogated?

If this is correct, then I am mostly in agreement.

During WWII, German saboteurs landed by submarine on the East Coast of the US were captured, tried by a military tribunal, than executed. I think it is okay to have a military tribunal for KSM -- but really, he should have been executed within a few months after his capture, at the most. Keeping him alive now serves no purpose at all.

My question to Malokownski is, do you then consider generals and our President, who plot the killing of civilians from thousands of miles away, also not soldiers? If they're caught should they be shot and hanged or given a military tribunal, or tried in a criminal court? There are always civilian casualties in any war, and you can't claim that the USA has never aimed at civilian targets (Nagasaki and Hiroshima).

Your arguments fall flat because they take aim at actions and situations that the American military itself is guilty of. This situation wouldn't be such a gray area if the US wasn't so ridiculous about refusing to actually formally declare war any more. If we were, then these people would be POWs, would have to be treated under the terms of the Geneva Convention, and there would be no question that we could hold them for as long as we needed without a trial at all - until there was a formal surrender and treaties were signed. No, I don't care that "al Qaeda" isn't a nation. We know they are a group and we know who the leader is and we know darn well what to do. Make it legal to declare war against an organization. We could have just declared war against Afghanistan since at the time the people hiding al Qaeda were in charge of the country anyway.

As a result, we'd have used proper, effective interrogation techniques which the FBI and Army knows full well have stood the test of time, whereas the torture methods are just about revenge and sadism.

If we're going to subject our sons and daughters to the risk of death, then we need to get over this "military action" crap and use the rules and treaties we've agreed to be bound by - they were negotiated based on realities on the ground in the first place. Otherwise, it just muddies the operational and moral waters and it screws everything up.

With due respect to Tom Malinowski, I read his previous articles on this issue and commend him for consistency but I believe him to be wrong. There is a distinct difference between the IRA in its many forms and Al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations.

Being of English descent, I could sympathize with the view that Ireland was incorporated into greater Britain some centuries ago and with the official establishment of the Irish state Eire, that left the fabled and notorious six counties of Northern Ireland ruled from the UK. The local assembly was dissolved as unworkable because Catholics and Protestants could not even agree on the day of the week, let alone anything else. Hence home rule from Westminster.

Much as I detested and opposed the tactics of the IRA, having nearly been blown up by them, they were seeking an independent Ireland. What is not generally known is that the Dublin government did not want the British to leave because as the terrorist, then freedom fighter and now statesman Gerry Adams was reported as saying something to the effect that when they had dealt with the British, then they would deal with Dublin and I don't think he was inclined to dialogue. For all his ambitions, it would appear that a united Ireland was his major objective.

On the other hand, we may be dignifying terrorists by treating them as enemy combatants but that is what they are; no ifs or buts, whys or wherefores. Those on the extreme left of US politics constantly remind us that the origins of the Taliban and Al Qaeda lie in western arming of the Afghan mujahedin to overthrow the Soviet incursion into their country.

What differentiates Al Qaeda and its leadership is that they have a global perspective based on a hypothetical Caliphate and they are fighting a war on at least two fronts. Afghanistan and Pakistan are the immediate battle fields and there is more to come in that general area. However, it must be patently obvious to any American that when Osama bin Laden declared war on America, Israel and the Western allies of both, that declaration morphed into total opposition to Western liberal democracy in any form.

Mr. Malinowski appears to believe that treating Islamic terrorists as enemy combatants is wrong. Therefore, by implication, he would fall into line with the current Obama administration's view of terrorism as a crime. I have news for you: a terrorist is by definition a terrorist, one whose sworn aim is to terrorize a population. That is an act of war and in this instance backed up by bin Laden. Carrying out attacks on American soil is aimed at undermining the population, and so far, it has been successful through stupidity in high places. Having KSM treated like a common criminal may seem fair enough from Mr Malinowski's human rights perspective but the problem with fundamentalism is that it's definition of human rights is that we have none. Furthermore, by systematic deracination of language, a terrorist is seen as a deranged individual, usually acting on his own, which has been proven manifestly incorrect on too many occasions. Secondly, thanks again to those who foist politically correct language upon us, a terrorist attack has become a man-caused disaster. Thinking through the logical consequences of such asininity makes me wonder how the victims of man-caused disasters such as 9/11 feel about the situation.

As a Cold War warrior and one who is unashamed to be known as such, I recall learning that Vladimir Il’yich Lenin told the Cheka (these days repackaged as the FSB/SVR) that the objective of terror was to terrorize and that meant terrorizing a population. There are some remarkable similarities between the way the Bolsheviks acted through their intelligence services and the way Al Qaeda and its affiliates operate today. The most obvious difference is that the early Bolsheviks wanted to murder and terrorize in order to persuade the citizens of the country to rise up against their government. Islamic fundamentalists do this on a greater scale in the certain and ensure knowledge that Allah is on their side and those who commit murder are warriors and suicide bombers become martyrs to be rewarded in Paradise.

George Orwell had a lot to say about clarity in the use of language. Under some circumstances, I would probably agree with Mr. Malinowski on human rights in certain countries; try the dictatorships of Africa, South and Central America and China. However, until the US government recognizes that the war extends beyond Al Qaeda and that the words Islamic and fundamentalism are not taboo, America and its allies will be on the defensive against murderous terrorist groups and infiltrators.

KSM should be tried before a military tribunal and dealt with accordingly.

With due respect to Tom Malinowski, I read his previous articles on this issue and commend him for consistency but I believe him to be wrong. There is a distinct difference between the IRA in its many forms and Al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations.

Being of English descent, I could sympathize with the view that Ireland was incorporated into greater Britain some centuries ago and with the official establishment of the Irish state Eire, that left the fabled and notorious six counties of Northern Ireland ruled from the UK. The local assembly was dissolved as unworkable because Catholics and Protestants could not even agree on the day of the week, let alone anything else. Hence home rule from Westminster.

Much as I detested and opposed the tactics of the IRA, having nearly been blown up by them, they were seeking an independent Ireland. What is not generally known is that the Dublin government did not want the British to leave because as the terrorist, then freedom fighter and now statesman Gerry Adams was reported as saying something to the effect that when they had dealt with the British, then they would deal with Dublin and I don't think he was inclined to dialogue. For all his ambitions, it would appear that a united Ireland was his major objective.

On the other hand, we may be dignifying terrorists by treating them as enemy combatants but that is what they are; no ifs or buts, whys or wherefores. Those on the extreme left of US politics constantly remind us that the origins of the Taliban and Al Qaeda lie in western arming of the Afghan mujahedin to overthrow the Soviet incursion into their country.

What differentiates Al Qaeda and its leadership is that they have a global perspective based on a hypothetical Caliphate and they are fighting a war on at least two fronts. Afghanistan and Pakistan are the immediate battle fields and there is more to come in that general area. However, it must be patently obvious to any American that when Osama bin Laden declared war on America, Israel and the Western allies of both, that declaration morphed into total opposition to Western liberal democracy in any form.

Mr. Malinowski appears to believe that treating Islamic terrorists as enemy combatants is wrong. Therefore, by implication, he would fall into line with the current Obama administration's view of terrorism as a crime. I have news for you: a terrorist is by definition a terrorist, one whose sworn aim is to terrorize a population. That is an act of war and in this instance backed up by bin Laden. Carrying out attacks on American soil is aimed at undermining the population, and so far, it has been successful through stupidity in high places. Having KSM treated like a common criminal may seem fair enough from Mr Malinowski's human rights perspective but the problem with fundamentalism is that it's definition of human rights is that we have none. Furthermore, by systematic deracination of language, a terrorist is seen as a deranged individual, usually acting on his own, which has been proven manifestly incorrect on too many occasions. Secondly, thanks again to those who foist politically correct language upon us, a terrorist attack has become a man-caused disaster. Thinking through the logical consequences of such asininity makes me wonder how the victims of man-caused disasters such as 9/11 feel about the situation.

As a Cold War warrior and one who is unashamed to be known as such, I recall learning that Vladimir Il’yich Lenin told the Cheka (these days repackaged as the FSB/SVR) that the objective of terror was to terrorize and that meant terrorizing a population. There are some remarkable similarities between the way the Bolsheviks acted through their intelligence services and the way Al Qaeda and its affiliates operate today. The most obvious difference is that the early Bolsheviks wanted to murder and terrorize in order to persuade the citizens of the country to rise up against their government. Islamic fundamentalists do this on a greater scale in the certain and ensure knowledge that Allah is on their side and those who commit murder are warriors and suicide bombers become martyrs to be rewarded in Paradise.

George Orwell had a lot to say about clarity in the use of language. Under some circumstances, I would probably agree with Mr. Malinowski on human rights in certain countries; try the dictatorships of Africa, South and Central America and China. However, until the US government recognizes that the war extends beyond Al Qaeda and that the words Islamic and fundamentalism are not taboo, America and its allies will be on the defensive against murderous terrorist groups and infiltrators.

KSM should be tried before a military tribunal and dealt with accordingly.

Honestly, I don't care how this guy is tried, just TRY him! This is nothing like the panasonic lumix dmc-zs3. Terrorists have forgotten about this guy. He's old news and no one really cares what happens to him. Let's just lock him up and focus our attention on new threats.

The article says "It makes sense that a man who plotted the murder of innocent people from a refuge thousands of miles away would want to be seen as a soldier in a war."

Bomber Harris is offended.