That is the problem right there. I think they deserve their day in court, just not the civilian court on our soil. Military court (in most cases - there are exceptions of course where everything crosses lines and must be dealt with). It is not unusual for a defendent to be incarcerated for 2 years pending trial for serious offenses (in our civilian courts), but they are holding them without action because they can and that is wrong.


>Once it goes to trial, yes.
>
>I have read about several of the military lawyers assigned as both prosecutors and defense attorneys in these cases. (No, Dragan, the same guys aren't assigned to be both). It was reassuring. They clearly believe in the fundamentals of our legal system. Some of the defense attorneys, although conservative personally, were uncomfortable with the administration's view of how the trials should be conducted. I really sympathized with them because they are in a tight spot. They are part of an extremely bureaucratic institution, the military, and feel an opposite pull to do what they feel is right. I admire their integrity and disagree with the characterization of the military tribunals as a kangaroo court. Yes, I would prefer cases be heard in our regular court system, but I believe these folks are doing the best they can.
>
>>Even in military courts you are innocent until proven guilty. Evidence from both sides is presented. There is a jury. No rights are suspended.
>>
>>
>>>Non citizens, don't rate the protection of the US Constitution.
>>>
>>>Hmm. A cynic might respond that the Constitution and Bill of Rights don't actually grant any rights to anybody; they merely protect/guarantee preexisting God Given Unalienable Rights. Assuming that God's care and influence transcends US borders, that word "unalienable" may be of interest. ;-)