given all the information “available” to the government (no secrets)

On the other hand, the first job of a military tribunal is to protect the United States. We don’t commit suicide to protect the rights of people we just fought on the battlefield.

To assume that Military Tribunals will result in higher conviction rates is like throwing a dart at a verdict and hoping it lands on guilty.

Detainees receive JAG defense lawyers as in criminal cases.

While I do not support holding trials for detainees in US courts, I support their right to an attorney. Imagine if black men were denied lawyers in the south, during the pre-civil rights error. Several were executed with hardly any justice by white southern juries.

That is an apples and oranges comparison. Adams defended those soldiers because a crowd threw stuff at them including clubs. The soldiers fired from the middle of a riot. They defended themselves from an enraged mob. Without Adams, the soldiers would not have received proper defense.

Almost nobody is saying alleged al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists do not deserve their day in court or proper attorneys to defend them. The problem is that the cases of these alleged terrorists rightly deserve to be heard by military tribunals, not by civilian courts. By trying to bring these terrorists into our civilian courts, Obama’s legal people have made a mess of things. This idiot effort by Obama’s legal people to try alleged al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists in our civilian courts makes them demonstrably incompetent — and guilty of having their priorities all screwed up. They are suppose to protect our legal system, not subvert it.

This Obama legal mess has nothing to do with the obligation of lawyers to do their job. The problem is an incompetent president and incompetent attorneys. Instead of trying to lead the charge defense of such rank stupidity, you should be leading the charge against it. Obama’s lawyers are giving your profession a bad name.

Consider the problem. Soldiers on the battlefield do not arrest people or collect evidence. Soldiers kill the enemy and break the enemy’s things. That is why we use soldiers only when we have not other alternative.

In the event we must try the enemy or one of our own soldiers, the treatment of a “defendant” and the rules of evidence must differ. That is why we must use military tribunals instead of civilian courts. Otherwise, we cannot give anyone suspected of war crimes anything even approaching a fair trial. Without the compromise of a military tribunal, we must either lock terrorists up and throw away the key, or we must let them loose.

Obama’s Justice Dept has not solved that dilemma by bringing alleged al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists into our civilian courts. If we allow these fools to bring people captured by our soldiers into our civilian courts, we either have to corrupt our courts by turning them into military tribunals, or we must let the terrorists loose. It should be obvious that either of these options is foolish.

The terrorists should be tried by genuine military tribunals.