Giving these crazed Islamist terrorist criminals the same rights as the rest of us is like spitting in the face of every victim of 9/11.
Isn't that the whole point of the trial? To determine if they are terrorist criminals? If it is a certain as you think it is, why would they need to suppress information? Surely, you aren't opposed to a trial where the outcome is certain?
Executing the accused without a trial is actually spitting in the face of every victim and tarnishing their memory. That would mean that we've destroyed the foundation of the United States using their deaths as an excuse.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Guantanamo_Bay_detaine...
Once upon a time, I was waiting in the Illinois state supreme court room for my then SO to be sworn in as a new member of the bar. Behind me, two little old ladies were chatting. "What they did to those babies, they do not deserve a trial." The topic was the (alleged, at the time) Oklahoma City bombing perpetrators.
That is an interesting line of thought, isn't it? Bad people do not deserve good trials. Obviously only good people deserve good trials. Wouldn't it be wonderfully efficient to simply dispense with the trials for all those bad people? In fact, why have trials at all? Good people do not need trials. We just let a cop or judge decide who is good or bad. The good people deserve trials, but since they are good, we can just set them free. The bad people, right to jail for you. Done!
The trial system as a tool of justice rests on the assumption that even very very bad people deserve fair trials so that society can make a sober assessment of whether and to what degree they should be accountable for the particular crimes. Otherwise it is all theater.
If you do not positively believe in open and fair trials for bad people, do not pretend you believe in trials at all.
Good point, and ultimately I think you're right. It just gets irritating when the enemy doesn't have to follow the same rules.
FTFY
The value of the law is not to give comfort to terrorists or evil doers, the benefit is in protecting everyone else. If those accused of the most heinous crimes are denied the benefit of law then all it takes to deny anyone that benefit is to level an accusation against them.
Maybe you think that you are safe from such things because your skin color, religion, or culture distances you from the terrorist archetype of the here and now (brown, arab, islamic). But without the benefit of the law such protections are extraordinarily flimsy and can be shredded at a moment's notice. What will you do when someone accuses you of being a child rapist? Those folks surely deserve no protection of the law, right? What will you do when someone accuses you of being a communist? Or a hacker? Or a pornographer? Or a media pirate? Or a dissident?
(P.S. I'm assuming I haven't fallen victim to poe's law, but I can't be sure.)
Maybe we should have some sort of system to decide this on a case-by-case basis.