Ever since Khalid Sheik Muhammad and his fellow terrorists have been granted a civilian trial in a civilian court, I’ve been asking one very straight-forward question – what happens if one or more of the defendants is found not guilty, or if the charges are dismissed (in my opinion, quite possible on grounds of failure to provide a speedy trial)? Does the Obama Administration release these terrorists? Or does Obama order their continued detention, creating a constitutional crisis in the process by rejecting the authority of the federal courts?

Well, there appears to be an answer coming from Obama’s Democrat allies – and the answer is somewhat akin to the arguments of Third World despots.

According to Democratic Senator Jack Reed, “under basic principles of international law, as long as these individuals pose a threat, they can be detained, and they will.” Come again? You mean if KSM is acquitted he will still be detained? Yes indeed, according to Senator Reed. He will not be released, “because under the principle of preventive detention, which is recognized during hostilities,” we can continue to hold KSM.

Well, now. It seems to me as though President Obama and Attorney General Holder need to be asked whether they agree with Senator Reed. If not — if they believe that the proud, self-confessed mastermind of the deadliest attack in history on the American homeland should be able to walk free if acquitted in this trial — then Obama and Holder should certainly say so. If KSM were acquitted, the president and his attorney general should proclaim from the rooftops that Mohammed is a free man, found innocent in a civilian court of law, and then allow voters to render a judgment on their decision.

If, on the other hand, Obama and Holder agree with Senator Reed, they should state that as well.

The problem is that it does not matter a whit what international law says in the scenario laid out by Reed – taking such actions would unambiguously violate the US Constitution. What’s more, in such a situation we would see established the principle that the mere acquittal of a defendant or dismissal of charges with prejudice is insufficient to guarantee that the Executive Branch will not continue to deprive an individual of their liberty after they have been adjudicated to be innocent. Quite bluntly, the Obama Regime cannot have it both ways – claiming that terrorism is a criminal matter best left to the criminal justice system while at the same time declaring it to be a military/national security matter subject to unreviewable executive discretion when the courts prove inadequate to the task.

Indeed, the only way that Reed’s argument based upon international law works is if one recognizes that the War on Terrorism is, in fact, a war and that combatants (both lawful and unlawful) may legitimately be held without trial or access to civilian courts for the duration of the conflict. It is impossible to argue for some sort of hybrid classification and system that allows for the continued detention of the legally innocent without making their trials nothing more than a sham and a show.