Civilian v. military prosecution

Human Rights First's blog has this post by Sara Sirota about the current Khattala prosecution in federal district court in Washington, D.C. She writes in part:

[Ahmed Abu] Khattala’s trial highlights the sharp contrast between terrorism prosecutions in federal court and the broken military commission system at Guantanamo. Federal courts offer procedural benefits for the prosecution of suspected terrorists that a military commission—which can only try war crimes—does not. The Department of Justice can prosecute Khattala for a range of crimes that otherwise do not fall under the jurisdiction of a military commission. Khattala’s charges include material support for terrorism and using a firearm during a violent crime, which are not war crimes.

Federal courts have also proven much more effective at obtaining convictions of terrorist suspects than military commissions. Since September 11, 2001, military commission trials have resulted in only eight convictions, three of which were reversed or overturned entirely and one partially. Meanwhile, federal courts have produced more than 600 terrorism-related convictions in the same period, including 108 in which the defendant was captured abroad, like Khattala.

Khatalla’s trial should serve as a beacon for U.S. terrorism-related trials moving forward. Not only is a federal court more efficient in prosecuting such cases, but providing access to an independent, civilian tribunal demonstrates that the United States is a country of laws and values.

The case grows out of the Benghazi attack, and is being tried to a jury.