Perhaps congressional Democrats and the five SCOTUS justices are correct.
Perhaps terrorists should indeed be arrested, granted Constitutional protections when they fall under US control, and afforded access to our criminal justice system.
Perhaps we need to rethink the whole War on Terror thing and simply adopt a kinder and gentler approach that hemorrhages time and money while allowing peer juries to account for the negative political, economic, societal, cultural, and environmental influences affecting terrorists charged with crimes. You know, "innocent until proven guilty" and all that.
Perhaps we should adopt a process that allows us to feel and look good when we "brand” convicted felons - figuratively, of course - and reinforce mechanisms preventing them from entering our country to cause mayhem (except to receive organ transplants in California).
The Left can even point to a recent "success story".
Last week, England interdicted a convicted felon who wanted to enter the country. The felon was identified using an internationally shared criminal database and notified prior to arrival that entry would be denied. Publicly outed, the felon promised good behavior but to no avail as the visa request was denied. Word on the street is that authorities confirm privately that prompt action in this case likely prevented a hostile makeover, or worse.
The felon? Martha Stewart.
Or perhaps we can continue to hunt down and kill terrorists, disrupt their financial and organizational networks, and imprison those we capture in obscure places like GITMO until they either die or are Left Behind, whichever comes first.
Seriously. A radical immigrant invasion is eating Europe's lunch and the British make a big deal about Martha Stewart. America won't be far behind unless we halt the dangerously naive behavior afflicting some in our executive, legislative, and judicial branches vis-a-vis the War on Terror.
Perhaps this thread can serve as an educational forum on how best to do that. Care to opine?