Yes, Mark: Even terrorists suspects deserve an attorney

One of the great things about our democracy is that the accused party of a crime has a right to hear the crimes of which they are committed, to have their day in court, to have an attorney plead the accused party's innocence, and to have the testimony be decided by a jury of peers. Those rights are just one of the aspects which separates us from a dictatorial regime in which an individual or a select group acts as judge, jury, and executioner. In the case of Mark Noonan dealing with suspected terrorists?
Off with their heads!

This is just insane. The men in Gitmo are dedicated killers...

So was Timothy McVeigh. So were the memebers of the Nazi party that had a hand in - or oversaw - the slaughter of Jewish prisoners. They all revieved an attorney in their defense. What makes a bunch of ragtag radicalized Muslims any different? Why shouldn't they recieve the same treatment?

There are some people who have put themselves outside the protections of the law – they are called terrorists. When we capture them, they are to count their lucky stars if we don’t kill them – they are not to get attorneys to try and twist American law in to knots for the benefits of the enemies of all that is decent in the world.

Have you little faith that our justice system could handle these people? We deal with serial killers, drug dealers, rapists, and the occasional white collar crook, and our justice system still stands. We can tackle an enemy combantant. But, for argument's sake, let's abolish our style of justice for these guys and go by your way of handeling terrorist suspects, by way of execution - no trial, no jury, just a few bullets to the face and chest, or send em to ol' sparky. Now, answer me this: What makes us better than them? What message does it send that we're willing to foresake our beliefs and our principles and resort to the same method of handeling prisoners of war that Al-Qaeda would do to us?