Yesterday, President Obama announced he wants to try terrorism suspects as civilians. This means that he will definitively reverse his predecessor’s policy, of treating terrorists as “enemy combatants.”

Although the decision was warmly received by leftists, most conservatives strongly disagreed:

David Horowitz: “The administration is justifying its decisions on the grounds that because the 9/11 attackers targeted civilians they should be tried as civilians. This makes no sense unless you are a Democrat who believes that the “holy war” that Islamic jihadists have formally declared on us is no different from the acts of isolated individuals who have decided to break the law. This is the approach to the war on terror that John Kerry championed in 2004. Now that Americans have had the poor judgment — the suicidally poor judgment — to make a leftist their president, this is the strategy our nation is set to pursue.”

Fausta Wertz: “The Obama administration has made a suicidal decision. We are all going to pay for it.”

Andy McCarthy, who prosecuted the first WTC attack perpetrators, as Fausta points out: “Today’s announcement that KSM and other top al Qaeda terrorists will be transferred to Manhattan federal court for civilian trials neatly fits this hidden agenda. Nothing results in more disclosures of government intelligence than civilian trials. They are a banquet of information, not just at the discovery stage but in the trial process itself, where witnesses — intelligence sources — must expose themselves and their secrets.”

Michelle Malkin: “If this White House thought Tea Party activists were an “angry mob,” wait until they see the backlash from 9/11 family members and their supporters nationwide. We’re not going to sit down and shut up about the reckless, security-undermining Obama 9/10 agenda and conflict-of-interest-ridden AG Eric Holder.”

Hot Air published two videos of Mayor Rudi Giuliania going nuclear on Obama for wanting to try terrorist mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City. Watch the video below the fold: “One: Unlike Rudy, I’m not worried about the terror threat to NYC from holding the trial here. The NYPD’s been building counterterror resources for eight years; we’re probably better equipped than any other city to deal with it. Two: I haven’t seen it mentioned elsewhere today, but note the perverse incentive this creates. In a sane world, a jihadist who limited his attacks to military targets that are capable of defending themselves would receive more legal protection than one who targeted civilians. In our world, the guy who ordered jumbo jets flown into skyscrapers gets the full complement of constitutional rights in federal district court. Simply put, a terrorist looking to run up a body count is better off going to the mall than to a military base, where the UCMJ might come into play. (Hasan is an obvious example, although his case is unusual because he’s a military man himself.)”

Charles Krauthammer: “Most Americans, we suspect, can overlook the legal niceties and see this episode through the lens of common sense. Foreign terrorists who wage war on America and everything it stands for have no place sitting in a court of law born of the values they so detest. Mr. Holder has honored mass murder by treating it like any other crime.”

Tom Maguire: “Team Obama has to postpone these trials until after the 2010 elections or this will go down as the biggest “own-goal” of the centurymillenium.”

John Hinderaker: “Ask yourself this question: suppose that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s trial results in an acquittal or a hung jury. Would the Obama administration really let him go? If so, they are crazy. If not, why are they holding the trial?”