Attorney General Eric Holder, speaking to Bob Schieffer from the Aspen Ideas Festival, told you nothing new on the ideational trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and the closure of Guantanamo Bay.

“No decision has been made yet on exactly where the trial will occur.” … “Bound and determined” to hold some kind of trial, as if that tells you anything of value… The administration remains “in the process of considering” whether KSM and his co-conspirators is “going to be in a military or civilian court,” but “the recommendation I made is that it should be in a civilian court.” And then he gave a wordy and substance-less dodge on whether that’s still his position.

That said, when asked what was wrong with a military commission for KSM, Holder flipped the question. “Why can’t we use a great criminal justice system… that has proven effective… why can’t we use that system?” Holder parried. “I think if we try to exclude the federal criminal justice system then we take away one of the tools the federal government has.”

I’ve heard that from so many administration officials for so long that perhaps it deserves more scrutiny than it typically receives. Holder’s argument here answers the proposition, “Resolved: the criminal justice system has no place in counterterrorism.” I’ll leave it for you to decide whether that’s actually a live issue up for debate, but I don’t think it is. Not even the most expansive definition of a War On Whatever has rejected criminal justice as a counterterrorist tool. These debates are about the proportionate role of criminal justice as a counterterrorist tool.

Consider the implications. Holder is marshaling evidence for the preeminence of criminal justice as a counterterrorist tool, citing — as has John Brennan — its 390 terrorist convictions versus the four convictions (al-Qosi is the fourth) in military commissions. But Holder won’t run that ball all the war downfield. And in order to convince people that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed should be tried in civilian courts, he has to actually argue — forcefully and consistently — that civilian courts are superior to military commissions from a convictions perspective.

It does no good to point out that one tool in the toolbox is most appropriate to the task at hand and then not use that tool. If your contractor opted to build a new addition to your house with what he contended to you was ultimately an inferior set of tools, you would question whether he knew what he was doing. “But look,” he might respond, “what’s important is that we have every tool in the toolbox so we can get the job done.” Well, no, you’d say, what’s important is that we use the right tool for the job. And if you really wanted that addition to your house built correctly, you’d probably fire him.

(Right, then, on GTMO: Closing it is “still a priority” but you need Congress to act to appropriate the money and they’re not doing that. Takes a dig at GOP attitudes on Guantanamo that have shifted with administrations. “We have done all we can to close Guantanamo.” O RLY? Holder emphasized the 60 or so repatriations that the administration has brokered since January 2009, indicating that it sure would be nice if the international community solved the detentions problem for the administration. And it would — if the administration was also willing to make a firm case for what laws ought to govern terrorism detentions. Because if not, the problem will just persist, especially if some detainees credibly argue that their human rights are in greater danger from repatriation than from Guantanamo.)