As a European who has studied counter-terrorism tactics for more than two decades, I find the 'debate' over whether to grant terrorists the 'right' to a criminal trial to be rather peculiar.
One danger that I see is that just because two people are both terrorists, they have the same goals, wants and needs, and will respond to the same tactic in the same way.
This is patently wrong to the point of absurdity. You don't need to study counter-terrorism tactics for more than two decades to figure out that North Irish terrorism differs markedly from Islamic terrorism in practically all aspects. I'll just start with number one: Islamic terrorism has the ultimate goal of destruction of all non-Islamic civilization, whereas the North Irish terrorism had the ultimate goal of annexation of Northern Ireland to Republic of Ireland. See the problem?
Looking round the world it is pretty hard to see an example of the Bush administration counter-terrorism tactics having worked.
Really? Al-Queda is primarily attacking it's own people nowadays, and has even issued an apology last week, in a PR move. They didn't need to do that five years ago as I recall. They've changed from a worldwide terrorist network into local thugs in several places. Like Osama, they haven't been eliminated, but they have been castrated. It's not a complete and total success, but it's close enough.
McHrozni