The other thing we should keep in mind is the concept of checks and ballences. Much of the concern over "terrorist" trials came after the US changed the rules of the game when trying IRA men in the US. The problem was that as a matter of policy, the executive branch of government concidered the IRA to be a terrorist organisation. The problem was, that in trials with jurries or with judges as the finders of fact, that alligation could not stand the scruteny and light of day that open trials brought to the issue.
I worked for many years in the firm with defended Joe Doherty. In numerous hearings, all before judges and panels of judges, the issue of the identification of the IRA and Joe in terms of terrorism where defeted, and as such, the executive branch chnaged the rules of the game and deported him to a nation to which the court ruled he could not be extradicted, under a standard of national interest which could not be challenged by a court.
Now, to those of you who believe, "I know what I know and don't bother me with the facts..." or "I don't believe there are any facts beyond those I get from the Times or the Daily News" and as such you are uncomfortable with the fact that exastive trials uncover truths which shake your comfidence in government, well in stead of changing your government, maybe you wish to have trials in the press by the press and save us all those judicial saleries.
Well, I am away to find my cookie, with thanks for the gracious understanding of my brother Bennet and best to all.
Cheers Larry