Very well. Let's suppose that we can make the rules. Please tell me how (how, exactly) we are to deal with the problem?
Full blown trials against determined terrorists will be problematic. What does a regular death penalty case cost these days? If I recall, it's about a million dollars each. And then, we have to add security for the trial...since other terrorists might wish to interefere. How much can we afford? How many agents must we dedicate to each case so that we can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the perp was guilty?
Oh, yes...how about the Judge? And the prosecutor? How are we to protect them 24/7 from other terrorists? Surely we cannot expect them to do their jobs effectively if they or their families are at real risk of being attacked by friends of the terrorist.
And then we have the jury. Twelve citizens, brave and true. And just one stubborn sort needed to prevent conviction. Compromise one - through threat or bribe - and you've neatly stopped the process in it's tracks.
Consider the defense attorney. Let us suppose that he (or she?) has some sympathies towards the terrorists. And he then communicates to active terrorists the names and home addresses that the jury members are required to write down. Do you suppose a terrorist group just might be able to intimidate a juror? Or, failing that, kill one.
Alternate jurors, you say? Sure. But that ups the cost too, doesn't it?
So now we've got security around our prosecutors, judges, and the jurors. Great! What about the witnesses? How about the cops that arrested the terrorist?
Nor does the problem end here! If a terrorist cell is willing to kill people, it seems a reasonable bet that they are willing to lie. So what happens when half a dozen friends of the alleged perp swear that he was with them, studying pig farming according to ol' 'hammed? The prosecution has one witness who saw Abdul in poor light from 30 yards away for a few seconds, and the defense had six witnesses, all nicely dressed in new blue suits with white shirts and red power ties who swear that they were all together. How, exactly, are we to handle it?
Terrorism is more dangerous than organized crime ever dreamed of being, because the terrorists have a primary goal of hurting and killing innocent people. Are we as a society prepared to accept lots of dead innocents as the alternative?
So, in all seriousness, let's see some ideas about how to deal with terrorists.
Since you've apparently missed that my sole concern is for American citizens finding themselves branded as a [terrorist, enemy of the State, enemy combatant, take your pick], let me state my position more clearly for you.
Let's suppose that we can make the rules.
The rules are the Constitution.
Please tell me how (how, exactly) we are to deal with the problem?
By following the rules.
Very well. Let's suppose that we can make the rules. Please tell me how (how, exactly) we are to deal with the problem?
Take every point you made in post #106 and replace the word 'terrorist' with 'mafioso' / 'drug kingpin' / 'serial killers'. We give those very evil people a fair and open trial -- I want nothing less for terrorists. Yes, the Mafia also intimidates and bribes law enforcement, juries, judges, witnesses but that doesn't mean that we gut the constitution because some people are monsters.