In the New York Times this morning, former Deputy-Assistant Attorney General Allan Gerson writes:
While it is true that military tribunals have in the past not accorded defendants the full range of procedural safeguards applicable in a criminal trial, this has changed in recent years. Section 949l(c) of the Military Commissions Act of 2009 specifically provides that the burden of proof, which rests on the government, is nothing less than that applicable in a criminal trial: beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, the allowances for the use of hearsay and coerced evidence have been eliminated by the Military Commissions Act of 2009. If one truly wants to have a “show” trail of U.S. fairness, there is no better model than what the military courts would do.
Finally, the use of a military tribunal would be understood around the globe. No country other than the United States has ever suggested that war crimes be tried in ordinary courts. The true moral advantage lies in demonstrating that military courts can live up to the promise of the rule of law.