But if the military commission is unfair or not respected by the world, why isn't Obama getting rid of military commissions altogether and bringing all the terrorists to NYC? It's just politics.

I do not understand what you mean by Banana Republic. Maybe you mean Kangaroo Court again and your just mixing metaphors.

Quidpro,
Some people are just guilty and even with the best defense team, guilt is guilt. KSM has proclaimed himself to be the mastermind of this plan. He was saying that before he was captured and I don't think anyone really doubts his guilt. It's just a matter of how the gov't goes about proving it and I was trying to point out that I am confident the gov't will be able to prove it with reliable evidence. Confessions get thrown out for not complying with Miranda all the time, and people still get convicted in this country. Chain of custody applies in a much narrower circumstance than I think you are giving it credit. People still get convicted.

Obama supported Military Commissions, and now he is supporting a civil trial. People (especially politicians) change their minds. But the Supreme Court said the Military Commissions weren't really fair in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, so what good are convictions in a system that our own Supreme Court says is unfair?

The professor's point, as I understood it, is that there is more domestic and international faith in the American Federal Court System than in the Military Commission, so a trial in that court would be viewed as more fair because it is in this court. And we should trust that our system is fair and can hand down a fair result.

The real argument I was trying to make is that we should just make different courts for National Security issues. It could have different procedures and it could ensure fairness while at the same time, give the gov't a little more benefit of the doubt. I don't want KSM on trial in federal court in NYC. I don't think he deserves to go to NYC after trying to destroy it, especially since his trial will be just blocks away from Ground Zero. It might, as the professor suggests, show him that he failed and NYC is still strong and still there. But National Security issues are too sensitive for regular courts and military commissions are too unfair to defendants to trust their determinations.

I don't want KSM in fed court or a Military Commission. I want a new court system for those issues.

My criticism of the decision of the Administration and the Professor's post is that if we are at war, then we should stop using the tools of the criminal justice system to fight it. KSM and his cohorts were captured on the battlefield. They are not entitled to the extra protections accorded to defendants in the American criminal justice system.

As a Senator, Obama supported military commissions. If we must try for war crimes, we should use that forum. Otherwise, there is no need to to hold any trial until hostilities have ceased.

Larry is correct as to your second point, Tim. No trial is a foregone conclusion. Except a show trial. KSM will have a top-notch defense team that will exploit every technicality available. And it is not a question of the competence of the prosecutors. When was KSM read his Miranda rights? Has any of the evidence, gathered under battlefield conditions, been compromised? Have we preserved the chain of custody? Rep. Boehner's concerns are valid.

The Administration's decision is both foolish and dangerous.

That's banana republic stuff, Tim.

And the idea that KSM or anyone else would be found not guilty and then walk out of the court house is even more absurd. Our military history provides many examples of where people were tried by a commission and then held for a period of time after that, even after being acquitted of charges. One needs only examine the trials that took place during the Civil War to see examples of this.

The U.S. Congress has twice given federal courts jurisdiction to try War Criminals. Congress passed the War Crimes Act of 1996 to permit u.s. federal courts to hear cases where someone committed a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions at the victim or perpetrator is a U.S. citizen or member of U.S. armed forces. They reaffirmed this law in 2006 with the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

So the U.S. Congress, the Justice Department, the Federal Court system, Attorney General Holder, President Obama and many more don't make the distinction you make where you wrote:

"Either they are military prisoners or they are criminal defendants. Either they committed acts of war or they committed crimes. If they are engaged in warfare, as they claim, then they are not entitled to a criminal trial to determine their guilt or innocence."

That's not what our law says.

I would rather see a specialized court system for National Security issues, comprising leading experts in the field and judges and attorneys who have handled these types of cases in the past (either as military legal professionals or other legal professionals). We have specialized courts for bankruptcy, patents and trademarks, admiralty and juvenile courts. How hard would it be to just create another specialized court for something as important and sensitive as National Security?

Both your post and the Administration's decision to try terrorists in the federal courts promote an unnecessary and dangerous confusion in how we deal with Islamic terrorists. You state: "Even if acquitted, the defendants would not be released from custody. They are admittedly supporters of al-Qaeda who have waged war against us, and regardless of the outcome of any military or civilian trial we may continue to detain them as prisoners of war for the duration of this conflict – which may be a very long time."

Either they are military prisoners or they are criminal defendants. Either they committed acts of war or they committed crimes. If they are engaged in warfare, as they claim, then they are not entitled to a criminal trial to determine their guilt or innocence. They are certainly not entitled to be read their Miranda rights when captured on the battlefield.

Furthermore, you suggest that even if acquitted, they would remain in custody. If the verdict is irrelevant, then proceedings become reduced to a show trial. You appear to support this decision to demonstrate the supposed superiority of the American legal system. But how is our system so superior if the verdict of the trial is irrelevant and the whole point is to showcase our supposed superior justice system?