Liberals, the human rights absolutionists, and the anti-war crowd often argue the enemy attacking us 1) can never defeat America, 2) are unjust “thugs” so calling this a war bestows upon terrorists the honorable title of ‘warrior,’ 3) terrorism will always occur so trying to win a war on terror that will never end is senseless, and 4) world peace is possible (even though terrorism will always be with us).

Conversely, I and others argue this enemy is 1) bent on victory as they define it, 2) attacking using weapons of war, 3) growing large and using both conventional and unconventional war weapons and tactics, 4) waging a world war, and 5) currently winning (based upon the fact they continue to grow and spread).

Whether you agree with all or any of the above, Andrew C. McCarthy says, “Denver shows us why we shouldn’t treat terror as a law-enforcement problem.”

Countries with more experience dealing with terrorism have developed administrative-detention systems for national-security threats. These systems enable the government, upon showing a court reasonable grounds (but less than probable cause) for suspecting a terrorist plot, to detain all the suspects for several weeks while a case is built.

It is not a perfect solution. There are no perfect solutions. There’s no guarantee that a terrorism case will be made; it is therefore possible that innocent people may be jailed for months, or even longer. Moreover, when such people were released, they would bear the stigma of having been terrorist suspects. But the same thing happens under current law when a suspect arrested in a terrorism case is either acquitted or prosecuted for lesser crimes such as immigration or false-statement offenses.

On the other side of the coin, an administrative-detention system would enable government to prevent an attack from happening, grab all the players it is reasonable to suspect, and have an adequate amount of time to pull together a prosecutable terrorism case before the suspects can flee. Detention, furthermore, would take place under the supervision of a court and with the appointment of counsel. This would ensure that the detention is consistent with law, that it does not go on longer than necessary, and that it is carefully monitored to guard against mistreatment of suspects during interrogation or confinement.

Regardless of whether you ever agreed that we should fight the enemy utilizing our military and even if we totally withdraw our forces from both Iraq and Afghanistan, the enemy will continue to wage war against America (you are either a fool, ignorant of history, or stupid if you believe Osama bin Laden’s propaganda to the contrary).

On November 13, 2001, I disagreed when President Bush excluded Americans from his military order to detain terrorists “and, when tried,” they were “to be tried for violations of the laws of war and other applicable laws by military tribunals.” In other words, I believe that whomever plots, conspires to, supports, or conducts acts of terrorism against America and its people anywhere in the world should be indefinitely detained and, when tried, [be] tried by military tribunal. In addition, as our Constitution gives the Judiciary no authority or role in the conduct of war, the President and Congress should ignore the past and future rulings from the Judiciary branch.

Note: Your intelligent comments are invited. No registration is required.