Act of War vs. Criminal Offense

The controversy over whether a military tribunal or a civilian court is the appopriate way to try so-called "terrorists" seems to boil down to one main question: Was 9/11 an act of war, or was it a criminal offense. I think it's best defined as the latter, a criminal conspiracy, a crime, a homocide or even genocide. But not an "act of war."

I think that to treat these acts as criminal offenses diminishes their status. "Act of war" feeds into Jihad, makes them more important than they are. Treat 'em as the criminals there are. What was 9/11 but a criminal act by 19 suicide hijackers, directed by a small cadre of fanatics in Afghanstan?

Their act, despite its tragic consequences in terms of numbers and notoriety, was a criminal act.

We were right to go after these criminals in Afghanstan. and to a great extent we succeeded. The Taliban was virtually defeated in only four months. And then we attacked Iraq and took our eye off the ball. You know the rest of the story.