"I mentioned the Zakarias Mousawi trial because it was a circus that lasted something like 3 or 4 years? You want to put some hundred people on trial with the same duration - and supply resources for each? There are not an infinite level of resources in the court system for that = so I do not think that it is an unfair or misinformed speculation. Again - I did never implied that these people should rot in a cell either - but I do not think that justice would be served in the normal court system."

Ironclad: I don't think you're "trolling," but I understand why your comments would upset people. And I apologize in advance if my comments are bitchy; if they are, it's because I'm one of the people upset by your posts, although I think they're worthy of a thoughtful response.

The reason the Massaoui trial was a drawn-out circus was largely because the government's case was bullshit. Similarly, the "long, expensive" trial of that college professor in Florida (whose crime was posting some stuff on the Internet criticizing the U.S. government) ended in an acquittal because the state had wildly "overreached" with its charges. ("Overreaching" is a euphemism, I guess, for charging someone with crimes he didn't commit.)

These sideshow trials, in other words, actually illustrate the importance of granting strong process rights to anyone -- yes, even dark-skinned Muslims -- accused of criminal wrongdoing.

"Expensive?" "Time-consuming?" Are you kidding? We're talking about the most fundamental rights enjoyed by citizens in a democracy. In my view, there's nothing more worthy of our time and money than a criminal justice system with meaningful procedural protections and a powerful presumption of innocence. To put it another way -- and I mean this: I would rather be blown up (or paralyzed, or blinded) by a car bomb than falsely convicted of a crime and imprisoned.

As I said, I don't get the impression that you're simply out to rile everyone up. Can we change your mind on this? I hope so.

We've all been hearing, for so long now, that "everything is different after 9/11" -- because "al-Queda is a 'completely different kind of enemy'" that it takes some considerable amount of doing to unlearn the message.

But this endlessly repeated mantra -- "everything is different" -- simply isn't true. Other countries dealt with terrorism for years -- decades -- before the catastrophic WTC attacks. If anything, America's geographic and cultural isolation is to thank for the safety from terrorists that we have traditionally enjoyed, and will continue to enjoy, come what may.

Some terrorist attacks are inevitable. We're not allowed to say that, but it's true. Think of Oklahoma City. Torturing people won't mean that there will never be another bomb. Even outlawing guns won't mean that there won't be another bomb. Getting rid of the courts (or replacing them, at least for non-white defendants or non-citizen defendants, with "bargain courts") won't mean that there will never be another bomb. There will be another bomb. Inevitably. But there won't be many bombs, and it makes sense to me to treat these bomb plots as what they are: crimes.

Why was Timothy McVeigh treated as a criminal, rather than as an enemy soldier? He was arrested, given a lawyer, tried, sentenced, etc. He had the chance to hear the evidence against him, to present his own evidence, to appeal the jury's verdict, to allege error by the trial judge. It was very "expensive and time-consuming" to afford him these rights, but he got them -- even though he was an "enemy combatant," according to the current jargon.

Why is Massaoui different, in your estimation? Is it because of his tangential connection to the nebula that is al-Queda? Is it because he's non-white, or Muslim? (Of course you'll say "no," but think about it: does race play a role in your thinking about these issues? If so, it wouldn't make you unusual -- or evil. Don't just hit back defensively: think about this!)

I hope you'll reconsider your talking points on this issue. You're wrong about this one. The "choice" we face is not, as you've said, "simple" -- and it is not a choice between a "police action" or "war."