A democracy uses its regular system to deal with terrorism. This is what Europe does and even Israel that is a middle of century long military conflicts uses courts for most terrorists.

go check the constitution, don't take my word, or jeralyn's, for it. after all, we're just bleeding heart liberals, not blessed with the incisor-like legal intellect that president bush is, or v.p. cheney, who never even graduated from college.

they, and you, are the righteous interpretors of constitutional law, as god sees fit. we bow in awe at your "deep thoughts".

one big problem i noticed with ms. moore's editorial jeralyn:

If the Guantánamo detainees were prosecuted in federal courts instead of being designated as "combatants," most by now would be serving prison time as convicted terrorists, instead of being celebrated as victims or freedom fighters.

she seems to casually overlook the fact that most of those held have never actually been charged with anything. i guess she just assumed they would be, or they wouldn't be in gitmo to begin with. i guess. i don't know, since she doesn't bother to provide any actual evidentiary support for her claim.

here, let me clue you in, clueless one: terrorists are criminals. always have been, always will be. that's why they're treated as such, not as soldiers. their intent isn't the same as a soldier's is. to badly quote lenin, "the purpose of terrorism, is to terrorize."

that's it, that's all there is. with regards to persons committing crimes against the U.S., while outside the U.S., we have extradition treaties. we don't need a tribunal, there's already established law and protocol, has been for decades. what cave do you really live in, anyway?

I believe it is obvious that others who commit crimes against the US outside the US should be held outside the US and that a tribunal should determine their fate. I do not argue about that in these comments.

While being held in military custody, Jose Padilla was denied due process for more than three years because of assertions that his case was too difficult or sensitive for the federal courts.

Yes and no.

There is no doubt he was held. But the question as to what the government learned during his interrogation has not been answered since none of it was used during the court case. He was convicted using other evidence.

If you start with the belief that the arrest warrant is viable, then an interrogation for information needed for national security operations naturally follows.

You can then argue the methods allowed, and the length of time allowed.

If you start without that belief, then what follows is standard due process.

I am not an attorney and my knowledge of the law is sketchy at best. Some of it learned here. Some in commercial settings. Some watching Law and Order. ;-) Jokes aside, I also learned long ago to hire an attorney if money or other important legal issues are involved.

I have no reason to believe that a "standard" USCJ trial will protect the country in every case.

I have no reason to believe that lengthy interrogations are needed in every case.

Within MS Moore's list of those convicted there are numerous cases of where the criminal has been set free due to some violation of their "rights." Indeed, this point was used numerous times by those who believed that Padilla be set free' This is of no great national harm when the individuals are truly "criminals." It would be of great harm when the individuals are terrorists.

Ms Moore also defines these individuals as "criminals" claiming that would prevent them from claiming that would somehow prevent them from calling themselves "warriors" and/or others claiming they are "freedom fighters." It is obvious that our name for them will have no effect on what they, or their supporters, call themselves. They are terrorists and should be called terrorists.

Ms Moore also makes the standard claim:

and show the world that America can protect itself while it respects the rule of law.

This comment appears to be based on the belief that the "world" understands what the US "rule of law" means, or that it cares. Given that most of us do not understand, why should we expect someone in Egypt or SA to understand? And given that our enemies believe in Shari law, and not our version of law developed from western culture, why do we think they will or do, care??

In fact they don't. They see our attention to these matters as a great weakness, and use it against us.

We need laws specific to these crimes. Given that such laws might weaken our rights, perhaps the answer is to demand stricter proof before an arrest warrant is issued. Perhaps the answer is to "sunset" these laws at a date certain.

Still thinner are the ranks of prosecutors skilled & experienced in those sorts of cases best suited to preparing them for the prosecution of terrorist acts & conspiracies: from the damage of property to maiming & killing & at a scale & level of sophistication more typical in systematic corporate theft & groups organized primarily to carry out acts which truly civilized nations & the majority of societies on this planet condemn as so destructively anti-social that they should be treated as criminal: trade in stolen property or addictive drugs or humans or their parts.

Tho not mentioned by either Ms Moore or Christy I would have thought one stark lesson to the public from the Trial of Libby was that - even in the case of a federal administration with a terminal [& infectious]addiction to knee-jerk secrecy - & even with a defendant whose acquittal was so obviously desired by the nominally-elected occupants of the corner suites in the executive branch - a set of standards passed into law by Congress [tho apparently on the whole a decidedly more contemplative version than the one whose members are due to return shortly to DC from their beaches & bomb shelters]- & endorsed by the judiciary as consistent with the promised made to each American citizen as embodied in the Constitution & its amendments - & applied in good faith by dedicated responsible persons employed in both branches - the system was able to ensure that a deserving accused kept his appointment in Samarra.

I confess to finding it odd that when it comes to such mundan-ities as legal advice involving a contract - or an important move on a corporate or tax matter - or when facing the prospect of prosecution by some level of government - most Americans tolerate ... more than tolerate: actually seem to embrace - the notion that it is only just - ONLY FAIR - that the individual be indulged his or her 'right' to speak & act thru her or his attorney - BUT when it comes to whether the legal system is able adapt to the latest hot 'crisis' - not just many Americans but CONGRESS ITSELF for crying out loud does not trust it.