Do we really want to strive to model the Yemeni version of justice and due process? 
That's the point - they tried him and we supposedly couldnt. We shouldn't be killing people with less process, and fewer limits on Government, than Yemen.
Roo_ster, what mechanism do you think should be applied to make the Government test its claims about terrorists? How do you think that mechanism would prevent abuse of power, and in what way would it be limited in scope?
I'm all ears. I mentioned the criminal trial because that's what we have traditionally used to make the Government prove its claims (which, again, frequently turn out to be wrong.)
Internal process trends towards the echo chamber effect, like you have on this thread with KGB and Fitz, where everyone involved agrees on the facts and then spends their time justifying each other's claims. There is a very real risk in that environment of unfalsifiable hypotheses of guilt.
Internal inquiries are prone to the people involved deeming themselves experts, with the result that when outsiders question their conclusions, they tend to write them off as due to a lack of knowledge. The obvious problem is that, when 12 random people can't be convinced of a fact, it's more than likely that the facts aren't actually there. This is why we have trials, so the police echo chamber is forced to become something that outside, independent people would agree is the truth.
It seems to me the risk is every bit the same, if not worse, for terrorism accusations. The Government's rate with Gitmo detainees was atrocious, as the majority have been found not to have had anything to do with terrorism. That's a powerful reason to doubt any Government claims about how sure it is that someone is a terrorist.
