The Obama administration has once again followed the lead of its predecessors on a national security matter:

Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, will probably remain in military detention without trial for the foreseeable future, according to Obama administration officials.

Take it away, Glenn Greenwald:

If it were true -- as most Obama defenders argued -- that giving civilian trials to accused Terrorists is not merely a good option, but required by the Constitution, the rule of law, and our values, then isn't it logically and necessarily true that Obama's refusal to grant such trials constitutes a violation of our Constitution, our rule of law and our values?  And if so, doesn't this require rather severe condemnation from the same people who defended civilian trials as necessary under our system of government?  After all, if the President is violating our Constitution, the rule of law, and our values, isn't that cause for some rather serious protest and denunciation, no matter his motives?

Well this Obama defender would prefer a civilian trial, but sees KSM as a prisoner of war. I'm not sure you can try him effectively after the rank and appalling torture inflicted upon him. But I am sure he cannot be released. This is the trap Cheney laid.

Excellent context is provided in the GQ profile of Eric Holder.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.