Charlie Savage reports that the military commissions are set to resume at Gitmo. Conservatives are happy because they view this as another sign Gitmo won't be closing, and because they have an affinity for the symbolism of military commissions that belies their actual merits.
It's worth rehashing the actual results of military commissions, and how relatively lenient they've been for the convicted.
Bush convictions:
Ali al-Bahlul -- An al-Qaeda propagandist, al-Bahlul has received the harshest sentence so far. He recevied a life sentence for soliciting murder and material support for terrorism, in part because he boycotted his trial.
David Hicks--An Australian caught fighting alongside the Taliban in 2001, charged with material support for terrorism. He got a plea deal and served a nine month sentence plus time served and is now free.
Salim Hamdan -- Osama bin Laden's former limo driver captured in Afghanistan in 2001, Hamdan was convicted of material support and received five months plus time served. He was sent back home to Yemen in January of 2009 to serve the final months of his sentence and is now free.
Obama convictions:
Omar Khadr -- Captured fighting in Afghanistan in 2002 when he was 15, Khadr was accused of killing Sgt 1st Class Christopher Speer. He ultimately plead guilty to "murder in violation of the law of war, attempted murder in violation of the law of war, conspiracy, providing material support for terrorism, and spying." Despite the commission recommendation of 40 years, Khadr will serve an eight year sentence, most of it in Canada.
Ibrahim al-Qosi -- Al-Qosi, who was bin Laden's former cook, was captured in Afghanistan in 2001 and plead guilty to conspiracy and providing material support to al Qaeda. His nominal sentence was 14 years, but al-Arabiya has reported that his plea deal may cut that sentence down to as little as two years.
These aren't examples. This is the complete, unabridged list of people convicted by military commission in the last decade. In the meantime, federal courts have sent more than 804 people to prison on terrorism charges and given them harsher sentences than they would have gotten under military commissions.
The reason I prefer federal courts to military commissions isn't merely that they're "tougher." It's that because they require unanimous verdicts and don't admit hearsay evidence, they make sure that the harshest sentences are meted out to the people whom we can be most certain actually deserve them. They ensure justice, rather than merely ensuring punishment. The only reasons to support the exclusive use of military commissions is because the rules grant the government an advantage in securing convictions and because the phrase "military commission" conveys a symbolic toughness unsupported by the results of their use.
Conservatives' concern about Gitmo "recidivism" can hardly be taken seriously given their support for military commissions. The relatively lighter sentences issued by military commissions mean that actual convicted terrorists are likely to see the light of freedom earlier than if they had been charged in federal court. But actually incapacitating terrorists isn't half as satisfying as sticking it to Obama -- or portraying their success in blocking changes as a "vindication" of Bush-era policies that aren't any more effective now than they were before.
