In a slap on the wrist to terrorists, the Gitmo military court recently sentenced Salim Hamdan to a prison term of five and a half years. Obviously, he was pleased with the verdict. Hamdan could be released in five months, based on 61 months he's already served. Or he could remain incarcerated following his jail term if the Pentagon concludes that he's a potential future threat.

News accounts reported that Hamdan appeared remorseful regarding his prior profession as driver for Osama Bin Laden. However, during his years as a driver, he didn't try to stop OBL from planning and ordering barbaric terrorist strikes on humanity. Hamdan could have quit Al-Qaeda, but he didn't. Although he didn't plan or carry out attacks, he supported terror. Were his tears before the judge genuine, or were they crocodile tears?

As an accomplice to OBL, Hamdan deserved a sterner punishment than a mere 66 months. If he ever returns to Yemen, would he be a productive citizen? Or would he return to his 2001 terrorist associations? Only time will tell the eventual fate of Hamdan. We already know that some enemy combatants released from Gitmo returned to their terrorist ways in their home countries.

The court's lenient sentence was a slap on the face against all civilized human beings who cherish life, liberty, and security. By contrast, this verdict must have thrilled Islamists and assorted activists involved in the field of terror apologetics. Quite often, "human rights" activists are very concerned with granting due process rights to criminals and terrorists. On the other hand, how often do these activists fight for the rights of victims of terror?

As usual, liberal and libertarian media outlets have their heads stuck in the sand, and their priorities upside down. While terrorists are treated with kid gloves during confinement, interrogations, and trials, the civil rights and security of hundreds of millions of law abiding human beings are often ignored. Liberals think that if we provide humane treatment to terrorists, that our behavior will be reciprocated by terrorists who hold innocent hostages. That type of arrogant naivete is staggering.

Why aren't liberal activists railing against the real torture that terrorists inflict on their innocent victims, instead of the few discomforts that terrorists experience at the hands of our civilized legal system? If free societies continue to walk on eggshells and give unearned rights to terrorists, how long can our liberties and security endure?

Liberals often throw out the term "high moral ground" regarding the treatment of Gitmo detainees. Wouldn't the high moral ground more appropriately involve the protection of innocent civilians who abide by the rule of law? Indeed, humane treatment afforded to terrorists won't act as much of a deterrent to future terror. It will only serve to endanger genuine democracy, responsible liberty, and global security.