Fundamental misunderstandings

On the front page of my new home today, there’s a story by Tom Ramstack about the Hamdan verdict. I found this interesting:

But some legal analysts continue to warn that military tribunals set a risky precedent.

Hamdan’s conviction could prompt U.S. adversaries to retaliate by trying Americans under similar procedures, said Herman Schwartz, an American University Washington College of Law professor.

“Certainly there is the possibility of similar trials, which Americans would be very uncomfortable with when they are the defendants,” Mr. Schwartz said. “We would probably condemn them as unfair.”

The “possibility of similar trials” by whom, Mr. Schwartz? Hamdan was an enemy combatant, not a POW. He was part of a rogue, terrorist regime. He waged an war contra to the conventions of war. He worked for an organization whose preferred method of trial is ritual beheading.

I’ll be honest with you: if an American soldier is captured by the Taliban or Al Qaeda in Iraq, I’d bet $100 he prays he’s treated like Hamdan was treated. And not how Daniel Pearl or Nick Berg were treated.