The President speaks of our "values," but never of the "principles" underlying our judicial system. In this case, the AG would give a wartime enemy combatant the same constitutional rights as American citizens, including the right to what the Founders called "trial by a jury of his peers."
If "innocent until proven guilty," as a fundamental principle, has any validity, then how is it that the person responsible for "executing" the laws can speak, with certainty, of the guilt of the defendant and the outcome of such a trial without destroying the very basis of the constitutional justice system?
To undermine the immediate safety of citizens by bringing such a trial to the courts is one thing. To undermine the very judicial system itself is quite another.
That was my point - but of course, you said it much better than I - great post!