Wrong court, wrong sentence

I posted on the Moussaoui trial before, but I can't stress enough my aversion to terrorists in our liberal dominated civil judicial system. Dan Sernoffsky writes:

The Moussaoui trial was essentially a joke. Held in open court, Moussaoui was able to regularly spew his vitriol damning the United States. His lawyers were able to play to any number of emotional sympathies about the various indignites he suffered while growing up, uncaring and abusive parents, poverty, a whole litany of excuses. And, despite the sentence, Moussaoui was essentially right when he proclaimed that he had won. He successfully games the system and will continue to survive at the expense of the American taxpayers in his prison cell.

Why worry? He's got a life sentence, right?

In 2008, however, the United States will have a new president, perhaps a president like Jimmy Carter, who allowed Ahmadinejad and his cohorts to take hostage 52 Americans in 1979, and who tried to avoid taking responsibility for a botched rescue attempt that left eight members of the rescue force dead. Or perhaps a president like the first President Bush, who allowed world opinion to direct his decision to cease hostilities short of taking Baghdad and capturing Saddam Hussein, thereby leading to the death of countless numbers of Kurds and Iraqi dissidents. Or perhaps a president like Bill Clinton, who allowed a Somali warlord to embarass the United States in Africa, who did nothing when an American warship was attacked and 17 sailors killed

Civil control of the military, yes. Civil courts for terrorists, NO WAY!