But the Geneva Convention also defines what a combatant is.

Note that Bush said the tribunal can also apply to people who gave assistance to the terrorists or anything like that.

We've never tried doctors and nurses before, but this will allow us to start.

"Also, I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure that a tribunal is not just a sentencing of a known criminal, but a trial in it's own right."

That is true.

As we did in Nuremburg.

But we didn't do it in secret.

"With proper oversight (usually a neutral country's representative), it should be as fair as a criminal court case can be without all the nasty little loopholes that bind those cases."

Ah, but such "proper oversight" has not been proposed, has it?

Again, in Nuremburg, we had multiple countries, in the open.

"More importantly, as the author mentions in the article, it can be performed without concern for terrorist reprisal."

Ummm, exactly HOW is that?

And don't tell me "because it is".

Tell me how holding a secret military tribunal will stop terrorists from hitting other targets. Or taking other prisoners? Or doing ANYTHING differently than they are doing now?

"1.How do we set up a jury of bin Laden's peers?"
Ummm, the way we do now?

"2.What's the potential that the jury picked might be pre-biased against him given the information broadcast continuously on the news?"
Probably pretty highly.
Oh, or did I say that it would be easy to do?
I suppose you'd have to allow a larger than usual pool with more latitude regarding dismissals.

"3.What's the potential that the jury might be influenced by the threat of terrorist action?"
Simple. Don't release the names of the jurors.

"4.What's the potential that an effective/sleazy lawyer could get him off on a technicality and defeat the whole purpose of this war on terrorism"
Ahhhhh, the crux of the issue.
You don't have confidence in your own legal system.
Either that, or you don't have confidence in the government's ability to build a case.
Too bad.

"And yes, because they haven't distinguished their "combatants" from their "non-combatants", the deaths of their non-combatants are considered as part of their crimes under the laws of armed conflict."

Huh? Because they don't wear uniforms, their civilians that we're killing are part of their "crimes"?

Are you sure you read that correctly?

We're killing your civilians because you made us kill them because we can't tell who the bad guys are.

I'll remember that comment, Drew, next time Israel uses a gunship on Arab civilians.

Remember, we aren't talking about assigning blame AFTER the event.

We're talking about our actions DURING the event.

We're still bombing. The event is still happening. We do NOT HAVE TO kill civilians right now.

Restraint.

Which was my point at the beginning.

All we're doing is breeding another generation of suicide bombers.

It isn't Osama who's dropping those bombs. It's the US.

It isn't Osama who will be blamed by the survivors. It's the US.

That same "logic" is what keeps every generation of suicide bombers going.

And now we have a chance to break the cycle.

But why? That's too much work. Better to blame them.

And drop more bombs.

We started off with people who UNKNOWINGLY shielded the attacker.
Your example of someone dressing as a fan of one team and attacking fans of the other team.

Now you're to the point of discussing people who actively support the attacker.

Instead of that, why don't we continue to focus on the reactions of the people who don't fully support the attacker yet.

The one's that form the crowd he is hiding in.

You go to a ball game.

You're cheering your team.

Arabs start shooting at the crowd you're in. Hitting and killing many of you.

But they were just trying to get the one person hiding in your crowd.

Feel free to blame the person they claim to be shooting at.

Rather then them for actually killing the people who weren't involved.

Again, full circle. Let's breed another generation so we can continue the bombing.

We've bombed sites that we KNOW he is not in.

We've hit civilians because of that.

Care to reconsider your example?

I agree, >IF< we could do what you say, then it would be easy to justify.

But when they know what he looks like
AND
They know he isn't near them
AND
We bomb them
THEN
We are at fault