For decades, the United States government has worked to imprison or kill radical ideologues who actively seek to murder innocent civilians. Recently, this activity has been renamed the “war on terror” as part of an elaborate public relations campaign by the Bush administration. Setting aside this superfluous designation, however, it is clear that the war on terror has never been anything but an extended exercise in law enforcement.

Don’t say that to a conservative though, as they are very sensitive about people belittling our enemies. And it makes sense: they have a lot riding on finding a new arch nemesis for the United States. After all, if there is no massive Islamic conspiracy to fight, why send young men and women to war? Why spend $7 billion a year on the military? What need is there to track down subversives?

The Southern Republican voting block seems perpetually lost in romantic mysticism about war, seriously hindering their judgment. Nostalgia takes precedence over analysis in this dangerous way of thinking, so that instead of being marginalized, terrorists are imbued with the power of a great army and their ideas are given a pedestal next to our own.

But this cheap fantasy, torn from the cut scenes of a Tom Clancy video game, does not reflect the actual process of fighting extremism. Yes, we need to stop prospective terrorists. Everyone knows that. But how?

We need to fight them on our turf instead of theirs, with law and justice, as opposed to murder and violence. In fact, the successes so far in fighting extremism, which President Obama will attempt to build upon going forward, have come by extending the umbrella of legal protection to as many people as possible. The law will always be the enemy of the extremist.

In Afghanistan, President Obama is pursuing loose ends that the previous administration ignored for eight years. Among them are corruption in the Afghan government, ineffective Afghan military and police forces, lack of governance over large territories and the Taliban insurgency. To address these concerns, the Obama administration is not focused on outright military victory over the Taliban, but on incrementally extending the power and effectiveness of the Afghan justice system.

In the United States, Attorney General Eric Holder will similarly expand the reach of the justice system by bringing to trial those who planned and helped execute the Sept. 11 attacks. In a major reversal, after holding the five co-conspirators for years within an extralegal system of secret prisons, military bases and CIA torture, the United States will soon bring them to trial in New York before a jury of Americans.

Just blocks from Ground Zero, they will be judged under the same code of laws that Americans apply to themselves. If they are convicted — a likely outcome — it will be within an institution that is, by definition, the manifestation of our core constitutional values. This trial will demonstrate that protecting the rights of the accused must be a pillar of democratic societies, no matter what the circumstances.

The principle that guided this decision was aptly expressed by a prosecutor in 1994, referring to a previous terrorism trial: “You put terrorism on one side, you put our legal system on the other, and our legal system comes out ahead.” Rudy Giuliani said that, though his respect for the law seems to have diminished since.