I do want to point out, however, that the argument, by Mike Lupica and some other mouth/pen-pieces across the country, against affording rights in criminal trial to a foreign, alleged-mastermind of a significant terror attack on American soil is rooted in a perverse and dangerous interpretation of the ninth and tenth amendments to the US Constitution. For those who haven't been following the relevant parts of those Amendments read:
Ninth Amendment (not full): "The enumeration of the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
In high school civics class, I recall having been among those speculating those Amendments meant you don't enjoy rights under our Constitution unless you're an American citizen. Having grown up in a predictably Republican State, that interpretation of the Constitution came naturally. I now engage in conversations with others who hold that view. But the view is wrong and there are consequences, even to American citizens, to holding it; as Giuliani clearly demonstrated while Mayor of New York City.
I shouldn't have to say this, but, historically, the ninth and tenth amendments were not written to restrict what would become American rights from others. They were written, within the context of the circle of control available to those framing our Constitution and Bill of Rights, to protect individuals and States against a too powerful, centralized federal government. The two amendments speak for themselves how they provide such protection.
The problem lies in people being too willing to be told that limiting rights to American citizens is necessary for the security of Americans. But the circle of people who enjoy rights have been consistently shrinking for a long time, at least as far back as the Nixon Administration. Our politicians, hoping to play on constituents' fear against their sense of what the right thing to do is, keep successfully filling our heads with the danger of people having rights at all. That has slowly resulted in an erosion of American rights and liberties altogether, not just those of foreigners, even as we continue to proclaim ourselves as a nation of laws and liberty.
Those who drafted and pushed for a Bill of Rights in our Constitution did not do so in a patriotic vacuum that favored rights for citizens of their new nation over everyone else. They encoded what they thought were natural human rights into a law they could affect: the US Constitution. They did so recognizing, from experience, that a too-centralized government would be tempted to seize too much power over individuals; and, in our case, over constituent States. The framers of the Bill of Rights did not intend to imply that rights they were able to enumerate in the US Constitution for American citizens limits in anyway the natural rights all persons possess.
With all this patriotic nonsense I keep hearing about the "American Way," you would think people would be paying attention to what the Founders of our Constitution and nation intended and why; and from what social experience they were motivated to write our Constitution the way they did. But I would be naive.
The behavior of most, particularly during this so-called war on terror, reminds me more of the lynch mobs in the movie re-runs from the 1950s and 1960s. In some of those "cowboy movies", you see a lynch mob wanting to take an alleged bank robber or murderer out to be hanged, justice without a trial. A strong, principled Sheriff or US Marshal stands alone in the way to block the mob from gaining access to the alleged criminal; so that the alleged criminal can be justly tried, and then hanged. In those movies, the principled character recognized that everyone enjoys rights respectively, or nobody enjoys rights; and that justice is conducted under the law, not under mob rule. That is a strong benchmark for which Americans are called to strive.
I honestly don't know about Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's guilt in master-minding the 9/11 terror attacks. Based on news reports, originating from the US government, he is guilty. If those reports are true then, of course, he needs to face the just consequences of his crime. But news reports of the U.S. government’s assertion are the only thing I have to base that opinion on. That is what the Constitution meant to protect against, too powerful control of our government over life and liberty. As in every other case, let a jury who have been presented with the proper evidence decide his guilt or innocence; and let the rest of us not fall prey to the power of politicians with their own private agendas to sway our sense of right and wrong.