I imagine the answer is another question: Where in the U.S. would they find an impartial jury?

That is a great point. Wow, LEO, evening up the score for an acquittal. That would really surprise me. NOT.

“For Justice For Iraq: Legal Case Filed Against Four US Presidents and Four UK Prime Ministers for War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide in Iraq | Press Release

Madrid: Today the Spanish Senate, acting to confirm a decision already taken under pressure from powerful governments accused of grave crimes, will limit Spain’s laws of universal jurisdiction. Yesterday, ahead of the change of law, a legal case was filed at the Audiencia Nacional against four United States presidents and four United Kingdom prime ministers for commissioning, condoning and/or perpetuating multiple war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in Iraq.

This case, naming George H W Bush, William J Clinton, George W Bush, Barack H Obama, Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Anthony Blair and Gordon Brown, is brought by Iraqis and others who stand in solidarity with the Iraqi people and in defence of their rights and international law.” (from afterdowningstreet.org)

Correct me if I’m missing something. Why so tepid? You usually nail the issue cold in 5 seconds or less…

“In other words, there’s no categorical determination driving the process (e.g., all those who attack military targets get commissions and all those who attack civilian targets get trials). To the contrary, federal prosecutors choose, in their sole discretion, the level of due process each defendant gets (including “none” — as in: indefinite detention with no trial)…”
__________________________________

That is the logic I raised in my initial post. Military targets = military justice; civilian targets = civilian Federal justice except in times of justifiably determined wars vs. politically and commercially driven ‘conflicts’ for oil et cetera.

” Omar Khadr — the Canadian “child soldier” imprisoned at Guantanamo for the last seven years, since he was 15 years old, for allegedly throwing a grenade at an American soldier in Afghanistan (that’s apparently “terrorism”) and the subject of a difficult-to-watch video of him weeping like the child he is while being interrogated — will reportedly be one of those denied a trial and instead allowed only a military commission, according to Canada’s Canwest News Service (h/t sysprog):

Canadian-born terror suspect Omar Khadr faces continued prosecution in the U.S. military tribunal established in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. . . .

The federal system offers the full panoply of defendant rights available to U.S. citizens under the U.S. Constitution, while civil rights groups have argued the military commissions at the U.S. naval base in Cuba do not meet that standard.

The decision regarding Khadr means that the Obama administration has, for now at least, rejected calls by his U.S. and Canadian defence teams for the repatriation of the Canadian-born terror suspect” . . . My view is, he should be prosecuted,” said navy Capt. John Murphy, chief prosecutor in the military commissions system.

So even for 15-year-olds who we imprison for seven years with no charges, we refuse to give them a trial. And note how the Canadian press account stresses our multi-tiered system of justice and how their citizen is receiving second-tier due process — an observation that one can be sure will repeat itself worldwide.

UPDATE II: In his Press Release, Eric Holder says his decisions today were “based on a protocol that the Departments of Justice and Defense developed” whereby he “looked at all the relevant factors and made case by case decisions for each detainee.” In other words, there’s no categorical determination driving the process (e.g., all those who attack military targets get commissions and all those who attack civilian targets get trials). To the contrary, federal prosecutors choose, in their sole discretion, the level of due process each defendant gets (including “none” — as in: indefinite detention with no trial), and Holder himself emphasized that “it is important that we be able to use every forum possible to hold terrorists accountable for their actions.”

There’s supposed to be one justice system for everyone — not multiple ones from which prosecutors can pick and choose based on assurances of ongoing imprisonment. Highlighting how dangerous this is, the DOJ’s investigation of al-Nashiri was originally classified as a standard criminal case, but — as his counsel pointed out today — he was assigned to a military commission because there simply isn’t sufficient evidence to convict him in a real court.”

the liberals will surrender America and the conservatives will sell it to the highest bidder. Who wins?

I am lad that this is not being tried in the MCJ.

THanks for the link. I think this and what nal said is the whole point. Great propaganda in the headlines with predetermined outcomes all around! This was very cynical of the administration. It’s a new low, even for them.

This is the link

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1113/p02s25-usju.html

The attorney general dodged questions about what might happen in the event of an acquittal. He repeatedly answered that he did not expect an acquittal.

But the US government retains another option. The Obama administration has made clear that it intends to continue the Bush administration’s policy of indefinitely detaining without charge individuals it deems are too dangerous to be set free.

Under this regime, an acquitted suspect could be moved back into open-ended military detention, legal analysts say.

Also, from the CNN link, the following quote seems like one more reasonable justification for having a trial v. a military tribunal for the others.
________________________________

Quote:

“Nadler said the families of the victims of the September 11 attacks deserve the opportunity “to see these trials and confront these defendants in open court.”

________________________________