When it comes to putting terrorists on trial, military commissions are obviously more appropriate than criminal courts -- it's just common sense, goes the cable-news refrain. Fortunately, Attorney General Eric Holder has more than common sense at his disposal when it comes to making decisions about terror and the Justice Department. For a look at the relevant facts, and the political environment that distorts them, Jane Mayer's article in the Feb. 15-22 New Yorker is a must read. So much valuable information that choosing a paragraph to quote here is almost a coin toss. But here's one that jumped out at me:

Last July, Holder assigned eight experienced criminal prosecutors from the Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of Virginia to build the best criminal case they could against Mohammed and his co-conspirators. They had until October 1st to investigate. The prosecutors gathered fresh evidence from around the globe, rendering the militarys case comparatively weak. Neil MacBride, the U.S. Attorney who represents Virginias Eastern District, participated in the process, and said, The prosecutors came together, and produced hundreds of pages of analysis that was granular, and evidence-specific. Many countries that had refused to coperate with military commissions at Guantnamo were much more favorably disposed to criminal trials. Among the countries that stood willing to provide evidence and witnesses for court prosecutions were Germany, France, and Great Britain.

If you feel bound to choose between commenting on the matter here and reading the article, please choose the latter. P.S. Mayer will be participating in a live chat Q&A this afternoon at 3:00 EST.

Mollie Wilson O’​Reilly is editor-at-large and columnist at Commonweal.

Also by this author
© 2024 Commonweal Magazine. All rights reserved. Design by Point Five. Site by Deck Fifty.