58 posts in half a day? Is that a record?
Clinically speaking, the problem with "terrorism" is that it differs from both the criminal law and "traditional" war in that (a) the offender isn't apologetic (like war, unlike crim), (b) we don't have control over the offender when not in our custody (like war, unlike crim), and (c) the offender is not acting on behalf of a "state" with which we're "at war," so there's little possibility that a military "victory" can end it (like crim, unlike war).
So the situation doesn't fit either model, hence the difficulty in addressing it.
The classic purposes of the penal law are deterrence, incapacitation, retribution and rehabilitation. The existence of defined offenses and penalties are meant to deter the undesirable conduct, the offenders are incapable of further criminal acts when they're confined, society gains a measure of satisfaction by the imposition of the penal sanctions, and the offenders are (theoretically) given therapy and/or vocational training while away to make recidivism less likely. Parole is controlled release during which the effectiveness of deterrence and rehabilitation can be evaluated.
And neither do the classic military tactics of using overwhelming force to obtain a military victory in the shortest possible time fit the circumstances, where an "enemy" is as or more amorphous as the Viet Cong. What meaningful "surrender" can we possibly obtain from the "enemy" where there is a quite plausible argument that our current devices for "incapacitation" and "retribution," like Gitmo, actually create negative deterrence, that is, they aid in terrorist recruiting rather than deterring terrorists. Put another way, we know that Al Quaeda loved the Iraq invasion, and loves Gitmo, because they play perfectly into their "David and Goliath" sales pitch. And I firmly believe, as others here have noted, that their main purpose is precisely to keep sticking their fingers into our eyes in the effort to provoke disproportional responses and get us into the same endless cycle of killing innocent people, and endless motivation to keep doing so, that now festers in the "Israeli" mideast.
To me, it is perfectly legitimate response to let the rest of the world know that, no matter how much harder it may be, we will never abandon our principles of applying the rule of law to the situation. That means capturing or killing people on the battlefield, not torturing anybody, promptly trying those against whom we have evidence of criminal activity and allowing international inspection of every place where we hold such people.
Benjamin Franklin himself famously wrote, in 1759, that, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." I don't accept for a minute the assertion that we haven't suffered, both among the worlds multi-Billion person Muslim population or even among our friends in the more "conventional" community of nations, far more than any possible benefit we've derived, not only from Gitmo but also from the passage and subsequent abuse of the so-called "USA Patriot Act." Both are abominations that defile the creed of liberty and due process of law that we as a nation were founded upon.
In the long run, we don't help our position by abandoning our principles. We help our position by sticking to them.