Justice Jackson's precedent setting opinion on trying unlawful combatants

Was 9/11 any different from Operation Pastorius? If not, then why are KSM and his crew being treated any differently?

When President Roosevelt was faced with foreign combatants on U.S. soil the Supreme Court weighed-in.

“…the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. The spy …, 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.”

Read full:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Quirin

Operation Pastorius (1942) was a failed plan for sabotage via a series of attacks by Nazi German agents inside the United States against strategic U.S. economic targets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pastorius

Attorney General Holder’s decision to essentially convey U.S. citizenship on Kahlid Sheik Mohammad and co-conspirators is an outrage to precedent, to our founding fathers and to you and me. Past Military War Crimes Tribunals have set standards:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/opinion/24iht-edgerson.html?_r=1

Express yourself: http://www.keepamericasafe.com/

Sign the petition.