Mav, i think that number (65%) exist, becaase americans, with all our fault, have a system of justice. ... but we don't have any faith, that any "government" in any mid eastern country would find any of their nationalist guilty -- actually, we think, the accused, would be "hiding out" in plain site, going about unencumbered by the law.

This is, I think, a good part of the concern. It would be laudable for the accused to have a full criminal trial here -- but no one expects, for example, that Afghanistan would consent to extradite bin Ladin et al. to stand trial in the U.S. Given that, mav, how would you propose to go about separating the "judge, jury and executioner"?

Interestingly: where extradition is not feasible, international law allows a trial if the accused is instead kidnapped to bring him into the jurisdiction of the country in which he is to be tried. The most familiar example is Adolph Eichman, kidnapped from Argentina by Israeli agents, and brought to Israel for trial.

The court rejected, based on prior precedent, Eichman's attorneys' argument that the court had no proper jurisdiction over his person (having obtained his person only by kidnapping). Those precedents included:
(a) (I think) the Nurenberg trials, and
(b) (I am certain) U.S Supreme Court rulings in the 1890's, where various US labor leaders, when criminally tried for labor-movement violence, had been brought by kidnap into the jurisdiction where the violence occurred.