One could argue that only those terrorist actions affiliated with foreign entities or countries can be considered acts of war. The problem with this argument is that the U.S. decided to put Zacarias Moussaoui, a French citizen, on trial for working with Al Qaeda on the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York. Yet, the U.S. captures and detains terrorists in military facilities like in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and holds them indefinitely and without any civil trial.

The Indonesian government decided to use the justice process to incapacitate a known terrorist leader, which they apparently failed at accomplishing. Bashir has not served sufficient time to society for his crimes, and efforts against terrorism have suffered a defeat. If the government of Indonesia won't take a tough approach to combating terrorism, how can the proliferation of terrorism be contained or eliminated in Southeast Asia? If more international consensus existed which elevated the villainous status of terrorist operatives around the world from mere criminals, maybe Bashir would not have been prematurely released. Maybe somewhere in this debate lies another more subtle reason the U.S. launched combat operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan. During wartime the government has more power to hold, detain, and conduct surveillance on both citizens and foreigners. However, declaring a “War on Terrorism” is not practical because a country cannot simply go to war with an 'action' i.e., terrorism. But Iraq and Afghanistan fall under the umbrella of legitimate military operations and for that the government can assume its war powers. Further, by fighting terrorism abroad, the U.S. government can ensure that captured terrorists are treated as enemy combatants and not regular criminals in the U.S.