The problem with this being treated like a crime is that nobody treated it like a crime. They treated it like an act of war. These guys are criminals but they're also at war with us. They use our laws to get away with their crimes.
The problem with this entire analysis is that we are not dealing with a governmental entity. I'm old fashioned, I guess - I believe a war involves two or more sovereign, governmental entities. You can go to war against Iran. You cannot go to war against a group of extremeists who like to crash airplanes into buildings because they have religious differences with America.
Oh, sure - it suits the political purpose of politicians who pander to that portion of our society that gets off on sending our troops on wild goose chases and calling it "war." But it isn't war. If the Second of the Second (my artillery batallion at Fort Sill many eons ago) blows up a building in downtown Berlin with a 105 Howitzer during a battle between American and German soldiers - that's an act of war. If some crazed Middle Eastern nut case blows up a building in downtown New York City because he hates America - that's a crime. It is NOT an act of war. The act itself is the same in both cases - blowing up a building. The difference lies in who is doing it and under what circumstances.
And they aren't US citizens so they don't fall under our laws. Legally they don't have rights as citizens.
(Sigh) The Right loves this argument - and it is flat WRONG. The 14th Amendment says: "nor shall any State deprive
any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to
any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
It does not say "any citizen of the United States." It says "any person." Every day, I represent undocumented people, i.e., illegal aliens, who are in custody, charged with various crimes. They are entitled to the same rights (right to counsel, speedy trial, right against self incrimination, etc.) as anyone else in the holding tank with them.
They are barbaric, uncivilized, murderous, and without remorse, and believe it or not they could slip through our legal system on a technicality. I'm sure that's not what you want.
I always have to shake my head whenever I hear that phrase - "on a technicality." It is the "technicalities" of which you speak that stand between us (you and I and all other citizens) and an oppressisve government. Wait until you are charged with a crime that could land you in prison for decades. If your lawyer tells you that he has found a flaw in the prosecution's case that is going to result in your winning the case and going free, are you going to decline because it is, after all, a "technicality"? I trust you see my point here.
I've met these guys. They can be very gracious hosts, yet they are into macho-ism on a scale you probably haven't seen in decades if at all. I don't think you know what we're dealing with here. These guys are the worst of the worst.
http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/islam-and-hypermasculinity.html
I'm sure they are the worst of the worst. Doesn't matter. That's what our criminal justice system does - accommodate everyone, from the petty thief all the way up to the worst of the worst. They all get the same treatment: due process of law. That's the way it should be. After they are convicted according to due process of law, and we are arguing what their punishment should be, THEN we can talk about their being the worst of the worst. But, prior to proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, they are simply presumed to be innocent.
Where would we be if we meted out how much due process an accused person should be allowed, based upon the seriousness of the crime charged or the heniousness of his alleged acts? Sadly, all too many people in our country today feel that this is what we should do.
Allow me to add - it is always a pleasure to debate issues with you here, on this board. I know we disagree on a lot of things, but it is refreshing to be able to discuss those differences in a civil manner. I appreciate it very much.