A jury of peers doesn't mean a terrorist jury, just as you don't need twelve accused murderers to try one. They must be equals, but "equal" isn't "same" (thank you, Madeline L'Engle.) My only concern is finding an unbiased one, but with 20 million New Yorkers you can probably find twelve who've been living under a rock for a decade. Jury selections often expose a surprising degree of ignorance about major events in more people than we'd expect, but if we need a change of venue that's perfectly legal.

Then for you, the war is over. The trouble with setting aside your ethics is they're rarely taken up again. It only hurts the first time. If we don't need to prove bin Laden guilty to execute him, why does he need to prove anyone guilty to execute them? You believe him vile and a threat, and I agree, but he believes pants wearing educated non-Muslim women a vile threat as well. I don't think that reason enough for either of you to kill the other without a trial. That's the crux of this conflict we refuse to officially call "war" and if we concede that point it's no simple matter of bending our ethics, it destroys our very casus belli. Then it's just dueling killers.