You are intent on reveling on the trivial.
Who cares?
The point is NOT whether the fuckers have landed on American soil (and, btw, Gitmo is NOT American soil). The POINT is that they are TREATED as individuals imbued with OUR Constitutional Rights as mere criminals -- and they shouldn't be. Not based on whether (or not) they happen to be on "American soil," and not based on any other rational principle.
They are entitled to "due process," and damn little else. And what process is "due" to them under THESE circumstances is not a simple matter resolved by resort to the intonation of the phrase "due process."
What process is due?
Until and unless you coherently answer THAT very question, your argument remains fatuous. And my prior post illustrates part of why this is so. In a real criminal trial, evidence might get suppressed if obtained in a manner that is no problem at all in the context of a military tribunal.
In case you missed it.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...rial-terrorists-from-gitmo-3.html#post2813861
By all means, send them to a military tribunal if that's your plan. Although what makes you think a tribunal isn't a "real criminal trial" is beyond me. But no special treatment, the trial goes on under the pre-existing rules and conforms to the same level of DP as any other defendant's trial. That would be fair. IMO, it would also end up with the same or very similar result as the civilian trial. There's a reason, actually several reasons, the military screamed long and loud for interrogation to follow the UCMJ.
You clearly DID miss it.
Here. I'll reiterate it JUST for you, GC.
10 U.S.C. § 949(b)(2)(C) states that [a] statement of the accused that is otherwise admissible shall not be excluded from trial by military commission on grounds of alleged coercion or compulsory self-incrimination so long as the evidence complies with the provisions of section 948r of this title. Section 948r, while excluding evidence obtained by torture, permits the admission of statements where the existence or degree of coercion is in dispute based on findings of reliability and probative value, and where such admission is warranted in the interests of justice.
Due process in both instances, yet not delivered in exactly the same way.
And there's a reason for that.
Where's sec 948r and the supporting case law outlining the standards applied in this balancing test where coercion is disputed?
Not that it matters, the rules are the rules and process is process. If these are civilians captured on the field of battle a military tribunal according to standard rules and standard process is appropriate just as much as a civil court. The important part is not venue, but that the appropriate process for that venue is followed - no special dispensations for special tactics or circumstances.