Many say that a terrorist does not deserve the right of a trial. How does one determine guilt if a trial has not been conducted? A trial is the process of determining guilt. So, it’s not possible (in an objective process that is uniformly applied to all people) to determine guilt before a trial. So, does it make sense to label someone as guilty before determining if they are guilty and then use that label as the justification for not giving them the process that objectively determines guilt?
And, relating this to terrorism doesn’t help the point. Terrorism is only different from murder in that it has a political or religious motive. Should such a motive behind violence change the picture totally and justify not giving a person the proper and objective process of determining guilt? If so, how do you know that their motive was political without a trial to determine the motive? What if the govt. accuses some innocent person and has little solid evidence for a terrorist conviction. A normal murder trial may set this individual free. But, under the Republican way of doing things, the govt. may label their motive as political, then they would no longer have the need to show solid evidence in a convincing manner, and that doesn’t make sense to me. What if the govt. normally used this terrorist excuse whenever it thought that their case was weak and didn’t want a real trial. That sounds like a path for abuse of authority and tyranny. My point is, one cannot make conclusions without the conclusion making process.