My money's on liar, although both are possible.
In his recent WorldNetDaily column, he suggests that the Supreme Court in the Hamdan case, by ruling that the Geneva Conventions applied to prisoners we are holding in Guantanamo and that we cannot try them by tribunal (presumably we will have to use normal military courts) has also ruled, in essence, that Bush can order them executed.
Not so fast. The relevant portions he cites allow for spies, certain saboteurs, and spies to be executed, but they say nothing about dispensing with the trial. He doesn't even bother, as Adam Yoshida does, to make a point that he sees trials as unnecessary. He simply assumes that the fact that they have been accused of war crimes to be the same thing as being convicted.
Does beleiving that the people at Guantanamo ought ot be tried mean that I am soft on terrorism? No, it simply means that I do not have the blind faith in our government (or ny other worldly government) to always catch the right people. Those who wonder "why we give terrorists due process rights" apparently are under the impression that we never capture the wrong person.
That is all.