That's not a position or argument...that's an admission that you have no argument.
Procedures to follow, in a nutshell.
If Al-Qaeda, try, prove, find guilty or innocent, and either IMPRISON (if guilty) or release (if innocent).
If legitimate POW, hold in appropriate facility humanely with oversight from Congress and SCOTUS, and release after end of our wars.
Simple LEGAL procedures we can follow that maintain our national security AND maintain our rule of law/values.
Then why did the USSC approve of military tribunals in WWII for acts occurring on U.S. soil?
DU'ER in disguise. Zot this 6/29 joined RAT
You are WAYover your head.
You rather clearly have no familiarity with:
1) military law.
2) the Geneva Conventions, or their underlying philosophy.
3) that the conduct of war differs from criminal prosecution (well, there are signs that you have a hint of understanding here, but not a lot).
4) what an unlawful combatant is.
5) that you don't find soldiers "guilty" of conducting war - being a soldier is not a crime in and of itself.
6) What a fair trial is.
7) That the President has warfighting powers that have to do with more than sending troops here and there and having them shoot at things.
8) What the term "Commander-in Chief" means (compare the wording in the Constitution to those of the Articles of Confederation).
You are also missing/mangling the difference between a hearing and a trial.