American Civil Liberties Union

The amendment makes clear that the U.S. is off-limits to indefinite military detention and that military commissions cannot be used for civilians in the United States.

The government wants to censor any statements the defendants have made about how they’ve been treated while in U.S. custody.

This week, I've been in Guantánamo Bay observing a hearing in the first capital case before this latest iteration of military commissions, that of Abd al-Rahim Hussayn Muhammad al-Nashiri. As the hearing has progressed over the last few days, a recurring theme has surfaced: the military commission system will not provide basic legal protections inherent in every other American courtroom. But, the prosecution says, in essence, not to worry: even with these protections swept aside, you can trust us to do the right thing. As I wrote yesterday, the prosecution — and perhaps the judge — does not believe the Constitution applies to Guantánamo prisoners. Chief Prosecutor Brig. Gen. Mark Martins emphasized in a press conference yesterday that the Guantánamo military commissions will be held consistent with our country's values — but apparently just not our constitutional values. In court, Judge James Pohl similarly seems to follow a loose notion of "fundamental fairness" but has so far refused to ground that notion in constitutional law. But trust us.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other prisoners accused of involvement in the 9/11 attacks will soon be tried at a military tribunal at Guantánamo Bay, despite the Obama administration's earlier stated intention to try the men in federal court.

On Sunday, a New York Times editorial lamented that despite improvements in the military commission system made by the Obama administration, "even the best-managed trial will not be able to change the fact that this country has in the last decade accepted too many damaging and unnecessary changes to its fundamental principles of justice and human rights."