It's not a military struggle; the only government of the only sovereign states with whom we could be said to be at war are, in fact, our created allies. We're not fighting a state, army or even self-sufficient culture. We're fighting a small but quite numerous group of individuals operating without borders, laws or militaries; it resembles organized crime more than anything else. Murder Inc. updated for globalization. Whether the motive is greed, bloodlust, religious dogma or some combination doesn't really change that. Hell, if combat itself were illegal America and many countries would find themselves in a heap of trouble; what's at issue here is whether that combat, legitimate or not, has been conducted legally. With a few glaring exceptions (encouraged by exactly the mindset represented in this thread) I think we've done so, and prefer we continue so doing.

But all of that is really beside the point: The point, if, as I hope, there is a point to this proceeding, is that, to be brutally honest, our culture is better than theirs because we don't squeeze a sham trial in between the prisoners last beating and their execution, then call it "justice. " Due process is one of the core principles we're fighting to defend. At least, I THOUGHT that's what we were fighting for; that's what those who urged this war insisted, but they HAVE been demonstrated to be a little "truth challenged. " Bad precedents are just that; it was bad when we subjected a US citizen to tribunal justice without due process and far worse when the SCOTUS ruled it constitutional, not only morally, but because now people urging America betray the very things that make her America will perpetually cite it as justification.

This is not Syria. This is not Britain under Bloody Mary; we don't have Star Chambers in this country. We're better than that. I pray we always will be, but let's be honest with ourselves here, because we have two choices:

1) We can affirm our commitment to the democratic process and the rule of law and treat these people as innocent of crimes until proven guilty, even though we know they're guilty as sin. Give them a fair trial where we PROVE that fact, and sentence them accordingly when it is proven. Taking peoples guilt for granted and deciding you can therefore ignore their rights is why O. J. is still out there. Alternatively,

2) We can accept bin Ladens accusations against America as a nation and people (i.e. not just a given political official) and concede we're not really disputing the method of tyrannizing people, but who gets the privilege of doing so.

That, you see, is what makes us different. It's not that the 911 bombers have no compassion for their fellow human beings, it's that they regard their victims as so morally compromised and deluded by indoctrination that they are LESS THAN human and therefore not entitled to human rights. This is not a road we wish to tread; it leads to gas chambers and 911.

SO, the question we as a country must answer (and it's shameful we need even ask) is: ARE we better than them? I guess we'll see....