I'd still argue for civilian trials. There was a time when terrorism was a legal issue. Eric Holder called the civilian, constitutional courts "our best weapon against terror." I'd agree. First, it allows us to see the full evidence against an individual in the light of day - to really understand the threat. If the threat is as great as is claimed, then this is a good thing because it reminds us that it is ongoing, and clarifies the scope in a way that is reliable and tested by opposition counsel. Second, it adheres to the basic rule of law, which is an important point if you're claiming the moral high ground. In a war between jihadists who use suicide bombers, and a military that refuses to adhere to its own law, there are no good guys, only winners and losers. Third, it ensures that terrorists themselves see that our society isn't crumbling into fear-based responses. I know it's cliche, but every time we make some knee-jerk silly decision based on fear, that's a victory for the other side. If the entire point of terrorism is to change our policy through fear, then it looks to me as though they've been succeeding for well over a decade. Our fear of the civilian court system is the most insidious change, because so few people seem to care about it, and its effects will be long-standing and hard to expunge.