1) Should terrorists be tried in a regular courtroom if they commit a terrorist attack in the United States? 2) Is it ethical to give the terrorist the death penalty in a state where they don't have the death penalty? 3) Is it ethical for the United States to go into another country and use interrogation tactics considered to be torture on terrorists, such as with the use of simulated drowning, or the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound?

There are differences of opinion on the question of whether terrorists should be tried in civilian courts, whether the act for which the suspected terrorist is being held was committed inside the United States or in a foreign country. In the case of terrorist suspects accused of committing acts of terrorism inside the United States, however, the answer is relatively simpler, although no consensus exists. Most of the debate on this particular issue centers around terrorists captured in foreign countries and either extradited to the United States or, as was the case in the post-9/11 period, subjected to what was called “extraordinary rendition.” The reason terrorists were incarcerated at the military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was so that the United States Government could interrogate and try, before military tribunals, terrorist suspects captured overseas without having to be constrained by the constitutional protections afforded American citizens. The concern was that, once inside U.S. borders, terrorist suspects would be afforded those same rights, thereby making their conviction more difficult despite the fact that most such individuals were captured on battlefields and were clearly armed combatants.
Most of the above deals with terrorists captured outside of the United States. In the case of those held for acts committed inside the United States, the situation could be considered different. The federal government does, in fact, have a lengthy and successful record of prosecuting terrorism cases, including those associated with the Oklahoma City bombings and the early (1993) terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York City. U.S. laws pertaining to acts of violence committed for political purposes are sufficient for today’s purpose. Where weaknesses in some areas of terrorism laws existed prior to the 2001 terrorist attacks, those were addressed in the U.S.A. Patriot Act, especially provisions intended to target the methods terrorist organizations and state supporters of terrorism like Iran use to raise and move the money needed to finance attacks. In addition, the means to incarcerate even the most dangerous convicted terrorists exist within the United States, although the risks to the U.S. public are higher in the unlikely but possible event any convicted terrorists successfully escape from prison.
Even more so than the question of whether terrorists should be tried in civilian courts for acts committed inside the United States, the issue of capital punishment is especially subject to individual opinions. There are plenty of Americans who oppose the death penalty on principle, so would certainly never acquiesce to the use of capital punishment in terrorism cases. That said, there is a list of federal crimes for which capital punishment is authorized, including terrorism. The U.S. Constitution is very clear on the matter of whether state law can prevail over federal law, and the answer is no. Article VI of the Constitution states:

“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

So, legally, the federal government can put to death someone convicted of an act of terrorism. Federal authority trumps state and local authorities, so if the jury in a federal capital case convicts with the knowledge that the death penalty is an option, the sentence is legal, and considered moral unless one opposes capital punishment in all cases. Then, the question of morality or ethics is left to the individual.
The third question posed—is it ethical for the United States to go into another country and use interrogation tactics unlawful in the United States, such as waterboarding—is more complicated than the other subjects. Both the U.S. and the laws of the foreign nations in question are involved, as well as the extremely murky area of national security law and the myriad interpretations of existing U.S. laws conceptualized by attorneys with the Department of Justice. As has been widely publicized in the years following the 9/11 attacks, key Justice Department lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel crafted memoranda justifying the use of “enhanced interrogation” tactics like waterboarding and other physical and mental methods used to elicit information. Immediately following the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed and the president signed Public Law 107-40, which authorized the president of the United States to use

all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Since the passage of that law, it has been the subject of endless debate regarding its intended use—in effect, it was not intended for use against Iraq, according to many members of the legislature, only for terrorist organizations like al Qaeda—with many inside and outside of government arguing that the law has been abused by presidents since its passage to pursue military and paramilitary actions against numerous armed adversaries.  In effect, whether it is ethical to use the authorities granted to the president to capture and even execute terrorists and terrorist suspects in foreign nations depends upon one’s perspective. If you are an American determined to kill or capture terrorists abroad, then the use of this law is ethical. If you believe that the intent of the law has been undermined and exploited for nefarious purposes, then such acts are unethical. If you are a foreign national and believe the laws of your nation preclude such U.S. actions, then, again, those actions are unethical and illegal. Certainly, international obligations such as the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment would seem to suggest that American actions could be considered unethical. For others, the war against terrorism justifies extreme measures that skirt if not outright violate established legal norms and ethics.
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/federal-laws-providing-death-penalty

https://www.aclu.org/other/fact-sheet-extraordinary-rendition

https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ40/PLAW-107publ40.pdf

How would you describe the speaker’s feelings about his lover?

I would describe the speaker as incredibly devoted and absolutely smitten. He not only believes that his lover is more beautiful than a summer day, but he also has worked hard to immortalize her beauty in his poem. He wants to give her the only kind of eternal life that one person can give another, and so he immortalizes her loveliness, comparing it to an "eternal summer" that will never fade or die, unlike the actual season of summer (which passes on to fall and winter in its time). He finds fault with a real summer day, a day from, perhaps, the best loved season of them all, when he contrasts it with her. This makes it seem as though his feelings for her run quite deep and consume him; however, there is an implied endurance of his feelings. This is not a fly-by-night lust or infatuation.

There isn't one single best answer to this question. Different readers might have slightly different interpretations as to what exactly best describes the speaker's feelings about his lover. I think "deep" and "passionate" work well, because the poem is full of beautiful language that is meant to highlight how much better his love is than a summer day. Summer days are awesome, and she is even more awesome. Additionally, I would describe his love as long-lasting and committed. The final lines of the poem state that the narrator believes that his lover's beauty will not fade away. She's not an unchanging immortal, but to him, she will always be beautiful. He has no eye for any other woman. She will always be perfect to him. She might think her beauty is fading away with age, but he simply doesn't believe that her beauty will fade. It might change, but it won't fade in his eyes. Even after death, she will still be beautiful because she will be living on through the poem. I would definitely say that is some deeply, passionate, and confident love.

What is eudaimonia? What does the term translate to and what would be an example of it?

Eudaimonia does certainly play an important role in Aristotle's Nicomachean (and Eudemian) Ethics, but he is not the first (nor the last) philosopher to use that term. 
Democritus, the fifth-century natural philosopher, is the first to argue that eudaimonia does not consist of external goods. Plato claims that the person who is just and virtuous will be happy (eudaimon)—this requires both that the parts of the soul be in harmony (Republic) and that the individual approximate the divine harmony of the universe (Timaeus).
For Aristotle, there are two kinds of eudaimonia—the ultimate is the godlike virtue of theoria (contemplation) as laid out in Book X of the Nicomachean Ethics. However, the eudaimonia attainable by humans consists in exercising phronesis (practical wisdom) and living a life that involves not only exercising non-intellectual virtues, but also involves external goods and relationships. 
It is important to note that, even though the term is commonly translated as "happiness," it does not mean pleasure or subjective contentment but is better understood as complete fulfillment. For these reasons, the word is often best translated as "flourishing" or "well-being."

Eudaimonia (Greek: εὐδαιμονία) is a central concept in Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, a work that has significantly influenced much philosophical thinking about ethics, morality, and the nature of the good life. 
The Greek term is still widely used by philosophers in modern languages, including English. It means something on the order of "well-being" or "human flourishing." Aristotle himself contrasts it with "hēdonḗ" (Greek:  ἡδονή) or immediate (especially sensual) pleasure. Living the good or eudaimonic life is our ultimate goal, of course; no one would say that they want to live badly or not flourish in some way. The philosophical quandary comes in attempting to define what actually constitutes a good life.
Aristotle himself suggests that it is one of “virtuous activity in accordance with reason.” He sees the ultimate form of eudaimonia as the philosophical life because, as reason is the highest and most distinctively human capability, the best human life is the one most in accord with and most focused on exercising reason. Stoics tended to favor a life undisturbed by the passions (apatheia) in which one attempted to understand and act in harmony with the natural laws of the universe. The Epicureans emphasized a goal of ataraxia (tranquility) and a life somewhat withdrawn from the world, achieving eudaimonia by "cultivating one's garden."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epicurus/

What animal does Ponyboy dissect?

In Chapter 1, Ponyboy is describing how the Socs are different from the Greasers. He mentions that the Soc girls looked down on the Greasers and treated them like they were dirt. Later on that night, Ponyboy is doing homework and starts thinking about how the character Pip from the novel Great Expectations is similar to the members in the Greaser gang. Pony says that Pip also felt lousy when he was looked down upon by others because he wasn't a gentleman. Pony then comments about a time in biology class that he was looked down upon by a girl. In class, Ponyboy had to dissect a worm, and he took out his switchblade to cut it open because the razor the teacher gave him was dull. The girl who was sitting beside Pony gasped and told him, "They are right. You are a hood" (Hinton 14). Ponyboy then mentioned that her comment didn't make him "feel so hot."

Was Woodrow Wilson progressive?

In regard to foreign policy, yes; domestically, not so much.
Wilson's legacy is highly regarded in Western Europe (there is an avenue named after him in Paris), due to his Fourteen Points—a plan for peace issued to negotiate the end of the First World War, which had a devastating impact on the continent.
In sum, Wilson's Fourteen Points encouraged frank and open diplomacy, free navigation of the seas in peace or wartime (the sinking of the passenger liner, the Lusitania, supposedly precipitated the American entry into the war), equal trade, the establishment and re-establishment of sovereign nations, and the evacuation of occupied territories in Belgium, France, and Russia. The Tenth Point helped to break up the empire of Austria-Hungary by allowing peoples within its crumbling border to determine their own nationhood.
The Fourteen Points is an extraordinary piece of diplomatic action. Its recognition of free trade and national sovereignty—all under the aegis of good will and mutual respect—makes it a diplomatic standard bearer.
At home, Wilson was less respectful and forward-thinking. Domestically, he is well-known for his racist attitude and discriminatory policies toward black people. For example, he favored the segregation of black federal employees, believing it to be more "beneficial." He failed to be receptive to the concerns of NAACP leaders, such as Ida B. Wells and William Monroe Trotter, who visited the White House. Wilson praised D.W. Griffith's 1915 film The Birth of a Nation and had a private screening at the White House. All of this occurred during a period in which the number of lynchings of black people was especially high. Deadly race riots broke out in cities throughout the United States in the summer of 1919, which, due to its extensive bloodshed, was nicknamed "Red Summer." Wilson, a Virginian with nostalgia for the Confederacy, was indifferent.
In regard to women's suffrage, he was a little better. Initially, he ignored the white women who protested for days outside of the White House and only became responsive when he learned that they were arrested and jailed. While imprisoned, the suffragists went on a hunger strike and were force-fed by their jailers. The thought of these women living under such conditions swayed Wilson who, on September 30, 1918, decided to speak before Congress in favor of the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/wilson14.asp

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-woodrow-wilson-speaks-in-favor-of-female-suffrage

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/wilson-legacy-racism/417549/

What is some sensory language in The Most Dangerous Game?

"The Most Dangerous Game" is a short story written by Richard Connell, in which a man named Sanger Rainsford finds himself trapped on an island, being hunted by a fierce predator—another man. General Zaroff, who felt he was not challenged enough with hunting animals, has been bringing people to his island to hunt for sport.
The sensory language in the story adds to the sense of suspense; the narrative wouldn't be nearly as effective if readers weren't able to take in Rainsford's surroundings.
Some good examples of sensory language in the story are: 
1) "It's like moist black velvet."
Rainsford uses this phrase to describe the "moonless Caribbean night" that he and Whitney are sailing through near the beginning of the story. This appeals to both the sense of sight and touch—we understand that what Rainsford is seeing is pitch black, like a rich black velvet, and that the night air feels humid and moist.
2) "The cry was pinched off short as the blood-warm waters of the Caribbean Sea closed over his head." 
This sentence gives the reader a great sense of the feeling of the sea against Rainsford's skin—it's as warm as blood, like falling into a hot bath.
3) "The lights from the windows sent a flickering illumination that made grotesque patterns on the courtyard below, and Rainsford could see moving about there a dozen or so huge black shapes; as they turned toward him, their eyes glittered greenly."
This quote is all about sense of sight—it describes Rainsford's first impression of seeing Zaroff's fearsome hunting dogs. We not only know how they look to Rainsford but also understand the intimidating aura they give off.
4) "He knew his pursuer was coming; he heard the padding sound of feet on the soft earth, and the night breeze brought him the perfume of the general's cigarette."
This quote appeals to the sense of hearing and sense of smell, which are wrapped up together in one moment of tension as Rainsford waits for the General to fall into his trap.
There are plenty more examples in the story, but I think those are a few good ones to get you started!

How does Crane's word choice create a frightening mood? Support your answer with specific textual evidence.

Stephen Crane's word choice does indeed create a frightful and intense mood and atmosphere for readers in this story. Crane's dark and foreboding word choice starts right from the opening sentence.

The dark uniforms of the men were so coated . . .

Notice the word "dark." We are not being told about soldiers wearing bright, clean, and crisp uniforms with shiny brass metal all over them. They are dark, and readers intuitively know that bad things happen in dark places. A few sentences later, Crane provides readers with a description of lightning. It is described as "monstrous," and that word does a nice job of deepening the frightening mood.

When a piece was fired, a red streak as round as a log flashed low in the heavens, like a monstrous bolt of lightning.

By the third paragraph, Crane is giving fairly graphic descriptions of battlefield death. We are told about a horse making a "convulsive leap of death" and a rider with a "crooked arm." In a fairly overt way to sell readers the frightening mood, Crane even uses the word "frightful" to describe a part of the battle happening on the hill.

The battery on the hill presently engaged in a frightful duel.

Moments later, Crane describes soldiers dragging another soldier's "torn body" away from the danger. Crane sells readers a frightening mood by not shying away from graphic battlefield details. He doesn't romanticize any of it. He makes war scary.