When you speak of a "trial," you mean a civilian type trial with an open court, access to the evidence by both sides, right to counsel and cross-examination, a jury, etc. Is that right?
There's no way I'd support that for terrorists -- there's no way we can transport CIA agents of special forces operators to a courtroom in GITMO to give depositions and testimony and be cross-examined. We need those people elsewhere in the world -- not cooling their heels for months during a discovery and trial. And what they have to say is classified information that will get others killed if released.
I'm sorry if some hapless goat herder get hurt in our war -- and I'm sure it happeneds. But it's very rare, and it's war, and unfortunately some people do get hurt to prevent much bigger harm.
Not necessarily. When I say a trial, I mean whatever the military considers a trial for this kind of person. I assume that would be different from a civil trial. Bottom line - I think we should either kill them or set them loose, I see no point in holding them in Gitmo potentially for years. What's the point? If they're dangerous, kill them, if they're not - let them go.