The statement that the French "don't even use juries" is incorrect. It is true that the Napoleonic law system, which prevails in much of Europe, doesn't use jury trials for many cases, but it does provide jury trials for serious felonies. A suspected terrorist would probably be prosecuted on the same level as a suspected murderer, i.e. he would get a jury trial in the Cour d' Assisses.

One could debate whether jury trials are desirable or not -- but then it is useful to keep in mind that the USA doesn't give everybody a jury trial, either. A vast number of people are jailed by out-of-court plea-bargain, without any jury being involved. The US system would not be affordable otherwise.

And as for the rights of the suspects under the Napoleonic vs. Common Law systems, it is best not to make any sweeping statements. The differences actually work both ways, and many European law specialists regard US courts as heavily biased against the suspects.

Also, I believe the French system prohibits, or at least seriously discourages, the use of plea bargains. Perhaps the French might not be known for leniecy towards criminal defendants, but I doubt that a straight up comparison of the "rights" afforded defendants truly reflects the fairness of the respective systems. And also, it is too easy to look at those systems outside the context of the society in which they are embedded.

A comparison of the effects of the respective criminal justice system, could be instructive. The truth is, even with all our vaunted rights for criminal defendants, we still incarcerate more people than anybody, and on a per capita basis by a wide margin; yet we still have higher violent crime levels than any developed country. And don't get me started on racial bias. If one were to view it this way, one could see our civilan systems as near perfect tools of oppression: they are generally seen as fair(or at least not substantially questioned), while clearly having unfair results. I fail to see what we are protecting with our adversary model.