Common sense FTW!
(The fact that anyone needs to explain this is worrisome.)
"
... we have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." -
George OrwellI also take this moment to point out the repeated misuse of the term "terrorist," which seems to be losing it's gravitas in the face of over-reaching application. So, to state the obvious once more, a terrorist is a person or persons, who through attacks directed specifically at a non-combatant (civilian) populace, which are orchestrated in such a manner as to cause the greatest psychological impact, intend to cause a shift in political or ideological policies by inducing a state of general fear, apprehension and/or anxiety in the public body. A person who enters a war zone to attack uniformed soldiers while neglecting to conform to the requirements of a uniform or other recognizable symbol, or who are not nationals of one of the involved belligerents, are not terrorists, nor are they criminals in the civilian sense. They are Unlawful Combatants which holds a specific distinction in international law and the rules of war.
Something else that has been gnawing at me, the decrying of the tribunals because all the evidence "comes from the government." When was the last time an ACLU lawyer, or local police officer offered to escort a patrol from the 10th Mountain in Afghanistan in order to ensure that all evidence that some jackhole was shooting at our soldiers or trying to blow them up was collected and processed properly? Has anyone considered that all evidence "comes from the government" because the Government(tm), in the form of our military, are the blokes actually over there collecting it as it were?
By the by, does anyone have the actual recidivism rates for released gitmo POW's? I recall running across quite a few in 2006 in Afghanistan who after being released, hooked back up with the Taliban and got killed fighting our guys (again) or went on to be suicide bombers.