Won't they get a trial or be released? A Military Tribunal IS a trial. They might not get a SPEEDY trial, but neither did Jeffrey McDonald when he was tried something like TEN YEARS after the murder of his family. And that had NOTHING to do with a 'war.'
A military tribunal TECHNICALLY is a trial, but if only one side is allowed to show up to the table, then it's hardly a trial at all. I want those who are called "Enemy Combatants" to be afforded THE SAME rights under the legal system as we give the shoplifters, absolutely. Namely, a fair trial. Let's assume that one who is classified as an "Enemy Combatant" is actually guilty of terroristic conspiracy. Why then, is it so bad to give him a real trial rather than a Military Tribunal? If the government has the evidence, then why must it use underhanded, devious, and unconstitutional tactics to bring them to justice? Unconstitutionally detaining those who are guilty is no triumph. Detaining them and finding them guilty in a court of law would be triumph. But using shady, underhanded tactics are certainly not triumphant. War certainly is bad. However, the "War on Terror" is no reason to deny freedom and liberty. George W. Bush said that the terrorists "hate our freedoms" and that their goal is to attack our freedoms. And certainly they have attacked our freedom. Not directly however, but rather by creating fear in us that we must eliminate our freedom or be the victims of terror.
<b>Vengeance</b<: In our system of justice, the accused has the right to face his accuser, right? Doesn't this entail identifying the personnel and the means by which we uncover these vermin who would do us in? Doing so puts our network of espionage literally at risk. It seems to me that you are contributing to the terrorists victory by declaring our rights evaporated.
