Not Change, but Reason

After campaigning vigorously against the practice, it seems that the administration will continue to use military tribunals to try foreign terror suspects picked up abroad. Some well-intentioned yahoos will surely howl at this, but it is really the only logical thing that can be done. Has anyone really thought through the process of trying a Saudi funded by Iran trained at a Syrian Hezbollah camp in US federal courts?

1. Would defense lawyers really get access to all evidence and the methods/sources that were used to gather it, and be able to confront witnesses?
2. After a firefight, if a US soldier chooses to capture rather than kill, will he be expected to put on a Team America World Police badge and Mirandize the terror suspect?
3. Do we want to store these people here in federal prisons, until their trial dates, relying on providence to ensure that nothing could possibly go wrong there?
4. Military Commisions are governed by the UCMJ, which is the system of justice used to try our own troops. Given that historically, not all service has been voluntary, many US citizens have been subject to similar guidelines.
5. Is the use of civilan courts on those not arrested domestically not arrogant? If a female soldier was picked up, and shipped off to Iran, would we not howl wildly if she was tried under Sharia instead of facing military jurisprudence?

So, short version, Obama gets this one right. As it is Obama, not Bush, there will be less wailing and gnashing of teeth. On these policies, I will continue to hope for little change.