Holder prefers keeping option of civilian courts for terrorism suspects from WashPost 15APR10

Consider these words from the film 'Judgment At Nuremberg' taken from the decision of Judge Dan Haywood (Spencer Tracy).
There are those in our own country too who today speak of the "protection of country" -- of "survival." A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient -- to look the other way.

Well, the answer to that is "survival as what?" A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult!

Before the people of the world, let it now be noted that here, in our decision, this is what we stand for: justice, truth, and the value of a single human being.

I can picture Joe Lieberman as a Kapo in the Jewish Ghettos, sending his fellow Jews off to the death camps while he licks the boots of his Gestapo master John McCain. They are disgusting.

THE WASH POST STORY
A proposal before the Senate to try all foreign terrorism suspects before military commissions would "seriously harm our national security," U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said Thursday, criticizing legislation introduced last month by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.).

"The proposal by some respected leaders in Congress to ban completely the use of civilian courts in prosecutions of terrorism-related activity obscures some basic facts and allows campaign slogans to overtake legal reality," Holder said at an awards dinner for the Constitution Project, a bipartisan legal advocacy group. "There's no question that if such a plan advances, it would seriously harm our national security."

Civilian courts and military commissions are both effective weapons that should be selected case-by-case, he said. Civilian courts can consider a wider range of offenses -- giving the government more opportunities to disrupt plots and use leverage to negotiate cooperation -- and enjoy greater credibility with foreign allies with less likelihood of appeal until commissions become more established, Holder said.

Supporters of military commissions say that foreign terrorism suspects are enemy combatants in an open-ended war who should not be treated in the same way as criminals. They argue that evidentiary rules should reflect battlefield conditions, and they note that recent congressional reforms have solidified the legality of commissions.