The same can't be said for the courts.
Courts have the burden of proof, and several layers of checks & reviews.
You argument/case had better be solid or the appeals process will cook off the politics, money & corruption as you go up the appeals process.
Besides, your (or mine) opinion means nothing,
My chosen profession was to be a Marine, secondly was a machinist.
I have to assume they learned as much about the law in collage and practicing as I did about being a field Marine or being a machinist.
It's not exactly the local lawyer getting elected circuit Court judges we are talking about here...
That thought crossed my mind also, but not as a mistake or shortcoming on the part of the legal system...
He won't be able to burp without a dozen intelligence agencies knowing what he had for dinner,
And he does know the catch phrases that might get him in contact with ISIS leaders/sympathathizers, both here and over there.
He might actually lead someone to a spot where a 500 pound bomb will do some good.
After 17 years will anyone remember or trust him. It's a good bet there isn't anyone alive that remembered him, but he might create chatter that produces Intel...
Your earlier comment got me to thinking... As a Marine, hypothetically speaking, let's say your squad gets attacked by a group of 10 enemy combatants (terrorists), all firing at you and your fellow Marines. One of your squad members is shot and killed. You have the chance to take out all 10 enemies. Do you really try and decide which one pulled the trigger that fired the fatal shot and only shoot that one, or to you just kill them all and let God sort it out? My personal preference would be for the latter (but I never served in the military).