to distinguish KSM's trial from Nuremberg

I have reached my wit's end when it comes to fatuous comparisons of KSM's trial to Nuremberg.  

Margaret Carlson writes, "The fair trial of Mohammed will make a great courtroom drama someday, on par with “Inherit the Wind” and deserving of comparison to the Nuremberg trials."

Michael Smerconish gushes that Senator Specter "was thinking of the Nuremberg trials when he invoked the 'American values' and the 'great many safeguards' the country will extend 'to these blaggards.'"

Do these people realize that Nuremberg came after the war?  Do they think the Allies would have held trials for the likes of Goering during the war?  Churchill himself had to be talked out of supporting summary execution for Nazi officials.  And the Allies weren't exactly reading Axis POWs their Miranda rights.

Now, the comparison would make sense if the war was over, but Holder himself says we are still at war.  That led to a pretty thorough smackdown by Senator Lindsey Graham, who understandably can't figure out why some get military tribunals, why others are getting federal trials, and just what kind of message the Administration is sending to military units still capturing enemy combatants on the battlefield.

Again, I want to give the Administration the benefit of the doubt on how the trial against KSM will proceed, even acknowledging that the deck is stacked.  But I'm skeptical as to how much they thought through the application of their decision to future prisoners.  But in the Administration's defense, as made clear with these other people comparing this to Nuremberg, apparently the Administration isn't the only failing to make that distinction.