If we're calling our efforts against these terror networks a "war" and prosecuting it with out regular army, then I don't see how it couldn't fall under the Geneva convention. Our whole basis for detaining prisoners in the first place is that they are "enemy combatants".

As far as there being more terror attacks under Clinton... maybe. But thats only because Ronald "second billed to Bonzo the chimp" Reagan pacified them by sending them arms and capital. Russia v/s Afghanistan, Iran Contra, Saddam's rise to power, etc etc.

The whole idea of a "rogue nation" in the current sense of the concept is bunk. We support plenty of regimes that are both brutally oppressive to their own people and threatening to their neighbors and regional stability. The difference is the nations that roll over for us and serve our need for exploitative trade practices, cheap fossil fuels, and cheap labor are considered "allies in the fight against terror" and the nations that don't, or don't have any resources we need are considered "rogue".

Since you counted embassies and ships at foreign ports as attacks on our soil, you're wrong. Our embassies in Yemen and Quatar get attacked in some fashion about once a month... gunmen, car bombs, suicide bombers, even mortars. It happens so often its not even news anymore.

I am unaware that following a money trail requires torture. Subpeona up some records, tap the right phones, etc. I know that some domestic spying is to be expected as a response to terrorism, so if we have to live with such a breach of our privacy we should at least use it to hit terrorists in the pocketbook.