Deborah Colson [Senior Associate, Law & Security Program, Human Rights First]: "Last Wednesday, a panel of six military officers returned a split verdict in the military commission trial of Salim Hamdan, convicting Mr. Hamdan of material support for terrorism but acquitting him of the more serious offense of conspiracy. Mr. Hamdan acted as Osama bin Laden's driver, said the panel, but the government failed to prove his participation in an al-Qaeda conspiracy to attack the United States. On Thursday, the same panelists sentenced Mr. Hamdan to 66 months in prison. With credit for time already served, Mr. Hamdan will complete his sentence before the end of the year.

The panel's verdict and sentence came as a surprise to many trial observers, and it was clearly meant to send a message: the government's case against Mr. Hamdan was weak, and 5 1/2 years at Guantanamo for driving bin Laden around Afghanistan is quite enough.

But Mr. Hamdan was not the only one on trial this month. His was the first trial held at Guantanamo since the detention facility opened its doors nearly seven years ago, and it was widely viewed as a test case for the military commission system.

So how did the system do?

Supporters of the Bush administration are touting the trial as a major victory for the military commissions. The panelists acted independently, supporters say, despite repeated allegations that the system is tainted by undue political influence. "That's the way a fair, open system works," said one prosecutor following the announcement of the sentence. "The sentence isn't always what the government asks for."

That one panel of military officers performed its job admirably does not free the system of political influence. Since 2004, at least four military commission prosecutors, including the former chief prosecutor, have resigned over concerns that the process is politicized. Hamdan's defense counsel, Charles Swift, saw his military career falter after presenting a spirited challenge to the military commissions. And defense motions to disqualify the system's chief legal advisor – a motion Mr. Hamdan's attorneys won several months ago – are now pending in multiple military commission cases.

Nor does the panel's effort to weigh the evidence carefully make the process fair. In fact, Mr. Hamdan's trial exposed fundamental flaws in the military commission system long before the panel ever got its hands on the case.

Relying on the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) [PDF], the judge permitted the government to introduce coerced evidence against Mr. Hamdan. Though the judge excluded some of Mr. Hamdan's statements obtained following coercive interrogations at Bagram, he admitted other statements extracted from Mr. Hamdan under abusive conditions at Guantanamo, conditions which included solitary confinement, sleep deprivation and sexual humiliation. The use of coerced evidence is prohibited in ordinary criminal trials, a Constitutional ban which has been in effect for more than 200 years.

And then there is the problem of retroactivity. The military commissions were set up to try war crimes. Mr. Hamdan was convicted of providing material support for terrorism, an offense that may violate federal criminal law, but has never been recognized as a crime under the laws of war. Material support was codified as a war crime in the MCA, five years after Mr. Hamdan's capture. Both the U.S. Constitution and international law prohibit such retroactive application of newly created crimes.

Though it took almost seven years to arrive here, the first military commission trial is far from over. Mr. Hamdan has the right to appeal, eventually all the way to the Supreme Court. Given the system's profound flaws, he may well prevail. Certainly the number and complexity of appellate issues will greatly exceed those that would have been the focus of appeal in a regular criminal court.

By the time the final verdict comes in, Mr. Hamdan may have returned to Yemen, in which case he will probably no longer care. Then again, he might care very much. The government maintains it has the right to continue to detain Mr. Hamdan as an "enemy combatant" even after his sentence is complete. Thus, despite the military panel's conclusion that Mr. Hamdan was just a small fish, he might still be in prison when his case finally reaches a civilian court.

What does Mr. Hamdan's case mean for the rest of the military commission system? Spurred on by its "victory" in Hamdan, the government will no doubt push hard to take at least several more cases to trial before the end of the year.

Pressing on with more cases now will be a costly mistake. Creating a system that openly and unapologetically rebukes internationally-recognized fair trial rights has already fueled the resentment of our enemies and friends alike, and it has served as a recruitment tool for al-Qaeda. Maintaining that system now, despite a trial that reeked of unfairness, is similarly bad counterterrorism strategy.

It will be up to the next administration to fix the military commission mess. Fortunately, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. The United States already has a criminal justice system that works – one that has brought some of the most serious terrorism cases to trial. Ramzi Yousef was prosecuted in federal court. So was Zacarias Moussaoui. Even Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was indicted in federal court, five years prior to 2001.

Transferring the Guantanamo cases to federal court will be challenging. Prosecutors will need time to carefully review the evidence in each individual case. Additional investigation might be required in some cases. And the American public will have to accept the pretrial confinement of Guantanamo detainees on U.S. soil.

But it will be worth it. The federal criminal justice system is capable of handling complex terrorism cases without compromising national security or sacrificing fair trial rights. To restore integrity to the American justice system and repair our reputation as a nation committed to the rule of law, we must return to the system that has served us well for more than 200 years."