Everyone's hailing Obama's decision to suspend all Guantanamo trials for 120 days. But I thought the problem with Guantanamo was the people being held without trial. Khalid Sheikh Muhammed was being tried by the UCMJ, which as far as I know, is what you're supposed to use on enemy combatants accused of war crimes. Doesn't this just further prolong the incarceration of anyone who might be innocent?
Update: I'm informed that KSM is not being tried by the UCMJ, though the major procedural objection is less that than that he's been tortured.
That is, of course, a major procedural, as well as a moral, objection. But is Obama really going to let him go rather than use that evidence at trial? That's a serious question. The American public polls in opposition to torture--but I'm willing to bet that it polls in even more serious opposition to releasing confessed terrorists. He must be hoping hard--as indeed we all are--that KSM decides to stick with the guilty plea. As Mark Ambinder says, the current orders buy peace now by kicking the can down the road.
In general, I agree with Glenn Reynolds and Jonah Goldberg that the exclusionary rule is a terrible substitute for civil servant accountability--but that's what we've got.