I have noticed that there is a double standard here at UT. I was told some time ago by Mr. Greenwald that discussion of the events of 11 September 2001 was not welcome at UT. However, I see that some authoritarians/State-worshipers are permitted to discuss the events of 11 September 2001 as long as they maintain the government's official religious 9/11 Myth (and conspiracy theory) that 19 Arab Muslims with boxcutters 'collapsed' three (3) steel-framed high rises with two (2) aircraft and penetrated the defenses of the US Military Command Center (Pentagon), all without anything resembling an adequate response to 'protect us'.

I guess Mr. Greenwald would rather hear from phony 'conservative' State-worshipers, O'bomb-a-zombies, and goofy 'jihad' conspiracy theorists who believe that Al K. Duh is going to take over the world, rather than engage in rational discourse with anyone who questions the government's official religious 9/11 Myth and who publicly examine the relevant, self-consistent facts, observable, measurable, and empirical evidence, and historical precedent(s) regarding the events of 11 September 2001.

The likelihood of any trial being a "show trial" is directly proportional to how much money and/or power is ultimately at stake for those involved and how imbalanced are their competing interests.

Dear inky,

One of the differences between you and I is that when I don't know something, I'm inclined to ask questions, looking for the answer. On the other hand, when you don't know something you tend to simply prove to the world that you don't know it.

For others, more willing than inkster, . . . what do you think is motivating Dear President Obama with regard to the policy of detainment after acquittal?

Any guesses? Substantiating evidence? Ouija board inspired insight?

Do not underestimate the power of embarrassment and shame to compel otherwise honorable people to lie, deny, and obfuscate. It takes far more courage and strength of character than most people actually possess to admit the wrongs that have been done, much less to even begin to atone for them.

UN-Freakin' Believable... the contortions our government is going through to justify treasonous behaviour over the last 8 1/2 years. I voted for Obama - I expect a whole lot more out of him than what I am seeing recently.

Oop; typo (or brain glitch).

OneWorlder: I believe you've highlighted just about the only real weakness I see with Greenwald's public persona. It's one I can forgive, because the issue of 9-11 is so very charged that gripping it too tightly or even touching it can nullify one in the arena of public discourse. Not discussing it is indeed a failure (imo), but it's a failure I painfully understand.

One of the differences between you and I is that when I don't know something, I'm inclined to ask questions, looking for the answer. On the other hand, when you don't know something you tend to simply prove to the world that you don't know it.

Perhaps you should try reading the multitude of letters under my name where I've been asking what you only just started to.

I'm also old enough to know how ignorant I am, and will remain for the remainder of my life. Admitting one's ignorance is merely the beginning of learning, not its terminus. Sadly, you seem to think it is, hence you're lack of critical inquiry.

For others, more willing than inkster, . . . what do you think is motivating Dear President Obama with regard to the policy of detainment after acquittal?

I'm all ears myself.

Any guesses? Substantiating evidence? Ouija board inspired insight?

So long as you understand the first and last are likely all you'll get. The middle one? Sorry, but such things aren't any more reliable than the average eyewitness on the stand.

Does it really make sense to connect trial outcomes with detention decisions in this context? They seem like two separate issues. If the President is conducting military activity pursuant to an authorization under the war power and, in doing so, captures enemy soldiers, the power to hold the enemy soldiers is incident to the power to wage the war (isn't this the Hamdi holding?). Whether or not the person has committed war crimes seems to bear on punishment beyond this authorized detention (such as incarceration after the war has concluded or the death penalty), not on the authorized detention itself. Obviously, I'm concerned about applying this principle to a perpetual war (and I'm also concerned about the idea of perpetual war in general), but that has little to do with the trial outcomes.

For others, more willing than inkster, . . . what do you think is motivating Dear President Obama with regard to the policy of detainment after acquittal?

Any guesses? Substantiating evidence? Ouija board inspired insight?

Substantiating evidence? I presume you're talking about evidence that the detainee engaged in "terrorism"?

Because they are basically denied all due process and it is procedurally impossible for them to 'get off on a technicality', the very act of trying to reconcile the notion that there was supposedly ANY "substantiating evidence" with the fact that they were ACQUITTED should make any thinking person's head explode.

Enter the neocon (non)thought process.

Why don't you clarify/qualify your questions if you want a reasoned response?

Third, the plight of the Muslim aid worker is something that gets heard, if anyone listens, over and over again. They knew this when they apprehended some of these people. Chillingly, they were incarcerated and tortured not because anyone had ever thought them to be terrorists or guilty of anything at all, but only because, being Muslim foreigners in Afghanistan (or elsewhere, like Bosnia), they were thought to know something (as it turns out, to know something about al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein)...

This is a sick variation of "Hey, you're from America? You must know my cousin from L.A.!"

(No? Give me ten minutes alone with you and you will...)

Does it really make sense to connect trial outcomes with detention decisions in this context? They seem like two separate issues. If the President is conducting military activity pursuant to an authorization under the war power and, in doing so, captures enemy soldiers, the power to hold the enemy soldiers is incident to the power to wage the war (isn't this the Hamdi holding?).

Hamdi only authorized BATTLEFIELD detentions - in Afghanistan. That isn't how the vast, vast majority of Guantanamo detainees were detained . They are being detained on the basis of specific accusations (They're enemy combatants because they tried to do X or did Y or were involved in Plot Z). If we put them on trial for the basis of their detention and they're acquitted, continuing to detain them has nothing to do with the power approved as Constitutional in Hamdi.

Also, the fact that the Supreme Court rules X is constitutional doesn't mean that X is a good policy.