IS IT ME? AM I MISSING SOMETHING HERE? LET BUSH THE YOUNGER JOIN KARADZIC IN THE HAGUE.

Ever get the feeling you're missing something obvious? Didn't the Supreme Court recently tell the government to knock it off with their newly invented system of putting the prisoners at Guantanamo on trial? Aren't Supreme Court rulings binding, the final say and all that? So how is it that the government just went through with the trial and conviction of Osama bin Laden's driver? Wait 'til that appeal gets to the high court. Did I miss anything here? And what's in store for Osama's gardener? Judging by the bleak landscape surrounding bin Laden in all his videos, that sounds like a job for the Fashion Police, or yet another make-up-the-rules-as-you-go-along legal system.

And aren't secret trials against everything that America stands for, and against the law too? You can's invent new ways to put people on trial because they are alleged terrorists. Guys who rape children and hack up families get open trials around here. They are presumed innocent until proven guilty and all their rights are scrupulously protected in order to provide them a fair trial. The charges against them are public and they have the right to confront their accusers and to mount a rigorous defense, even guys that are caught red handed. In America, you didn't shoot Granny in the head like it shows so clearly on the video tape until after a fair trial by a jury of your peers says you shot Granny in the head. Only then do you go to the slammer for shooting Granny in the head and you can appeal the decision if you like.

We have a pretty extensive criminal justice system here, but we're told by Bush The Younger that the guys in Guantanamo are not criminals. What? Then why are they locked up? Did bin Laden's chauffeur have a whole bunch of moving violations, then? Parking tickets? Hardly seems like anything you'd conduct a secret trial over. Suspend the guy's license, make him pay fines, that sort of thing. Oh, they're prisoners of war? There's all sorts of international law that America always abided by when it comes to POWS. But they're not exactly prisoners of war, you say? Okay, I'll bite, what the hell are they? Unlawful combatants.

Am I still missing something here? That sounds like a crime to me, falling under the jurisdiction of the courts we already have in place. I mean, the term unlawful, that sure as hell implies criminal conduct. There's got to be plenty of laws on the books that prohibit unlawful combat, even if it's only copyright infringement of all our mercenary corporations with their heavily armed private armies like Blackwater and the like. And why isn't that illegal? If I knew I could raise my own private amy and call my soldiers "Security Contractors" I'd probably have won a few more arguments here and there over the years. Nothing convinces people you are right like a bunch of henchmen with machine guns, helicopter gun ships and light artillery.

And what happens when some enemy catches American Security Contractors? Will we be shocked when they are branded as illegal combatants, held without recourse to due process of law and then tried secretly in some newly invented semi-legal process? And why would they stop there? Wouldn't our regular soldiers be subject to the same treatment? That's the funny thing about invading a foreign nation. None of the locals figure you have a lawful right to be there, even if you are winning. Especially if you are winning. But that's why nations drew up The Geneva Convention, to deal with the sticky issues of warfare, and it's pretty comprehensive.

So whatever those guys in Guantanamo are, and most of them seem to have been caught while fighting against our armed forces, they can be charged only as criminals or prisoners of war. There is no third legal definition. They are not heroes but America has made them so by holding them for years without due process, inventing a dubious new forum to administer justice to them and by doing it in secret. Either you are America or you are not America and our current administration is betraying us every day this sort of thing goes on. National Security is not much of an issue when the first guy you try is a damned chauffeur. You sort of hope they used this lightweight stooge as a guinea pig for their new system and he's not their poster boy for striking terror into our hearts. Please!

The truth about terror attacks is that most Americans were really not so scared by 9/11, even those of us who live in New York where most of the carnage occurred. As horrible as that attack was, America doesn't scare that easy. Pissed off is a more apt term. Pissed off and expecting swift and brutal retaliation against the ones who attacked us. It is our own government who has gone about the business of attempting to scare Americans, creating new agencies, spreading phony terror alerts and constantly haranguing us about what evil plans these people have in store for us. And when none of these phony threats come to pass, they tell us that's because they were on the job, stripping away inconvenient sections of the Bill of Rights and spiriting away suspects like the KGB. They used terrorism to start an oil war against a nation that never threatened us, for God's sake! Who's going to put them on trial for that?

And now they're scaring us again with secret trials that would do Josef Stalin and Lavrentiy Beria proud, defying the Supreme Court and exhibiting a profound ineptitude in finding Osama bin Laden and destroying al Queda once and for all. Getting the chauffeur is not a good start, especially not 7 long years later. I think that Serb genocide guy Karadzic needs some company in the Hague: Bush the Younger, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Ashcroft and Rove. Ether you are America or not, and these people are traitors and international war criminals and America doesn't stand for either kind.