Terrorists Should Be Tried in a Military Tribunal

On September 11, 2001, nearly three thousand innocent American citizens were killed in the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers. It affected and devastated the entire nations. In the 6th amendment it states that you have the right to a fair and speedy trial by an impartial jury. You will not be able to find one unbiased American willing to be open-minded and listen to the trial based on fact. The nation was hurt. Wouldn't it be better for the accused' sake, to have their case held in a military tribunal, in which their would be authority trained and taught to keep their opinion and emotions out of their cases in deciding the fate of the accused? If terrorists have the rights of the accused as stated in the Bill of Rights, which would mean that they are under the Constitution's jurisdiction, then haven't they also committed treason as defined by Article 3 Section 3 in the Constitution? Over 15 Americans have lost their lives in terrorist attacks since Sept. 11, 2001. When do we come to the conclusion that enough is enough? An act of war is defined as, "an act of aggression by a country against another with which is allegedly at peace". Were we not at peace on September 11, 2001? How about the other days that other American citizens were killed due to terrorism? If an act of war is defined as "an aggressive acts which constitutes an immediate to peace", and if a war crime is defined as "killing or conspiring to kill anyone not involved in the hostilities", then isn't terrorism an act of war as well as a war crime? Since a power of Congress, as stated in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, is to "define and punish offenses against the law of nations" the principles of which would include terrorism as being a breach of the law of nations, doesn't that give Congress the authority to decide how terrorists should be tried? In Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, it states that, "Congress shall have power to provide for common defense and general welfare of the United States". If people know about the trial and its location, wouldn't civilian trials for terrorists not only put the jury in danger of protests, but also the terrorist? In the 6th amendment in states that the accused has the right to a public trial. If we do hold the trial in public, wouldn't that put national security at risk, as military secrets could be leaked? "Military tribunals protect U.S. intelligence sources and methods from being revealed in open court. Many war crimes, acts of war, and acts of terrorism weren't committed on U.S. soil. Therefore, there is no Constitutional jurisdiction. Why would the Constitution still apply if the crime wasn't even committed in the US? Does the power of Congress to make rules about captures as stated in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution also give them the authority to decide how captured terrorists should be tried? Terrorists are enemy combatants, not common criminals. They commit acts of war against the American people, not crimes. They should be tried at military commissions, not in civilian courts where they have access to the same rights as U.S. citizens. The Military Tribunals for Terrorists Act makes sure that foreign terrorists are tried in military tribunals, not civilian courts. Military tribunals have served the nation well since the Revolutionary War and we should continue to use them.