Criminal Defense Lawyer Response

I am a criminal defense attorney who has defended clients in several so-called terrorism cases around the United States since 2003. Following is a partial list:

United States v. Sami Al Arian, United States v. Holy Land Foundation, both trials, United States v. Aafia Siddiqui, Mohamedou Salahi vs. Barack Obama (a Guantanamo detainee), United States v. Muthanna al Hanooti, and others.

As a result, my perspective from the criminal defense trench makes me cringe when I hear lawyers and defense bars parroting the administration's party line that the federal courts are preferred because they are so "transparent" and "fairer,” which is code for a guaranteed conviction. You see, Attorney General Holder and the government are correct, a conviction is nearly guaranteed in the federal court system; not only the devastating terrorism enhancements result in cruel and unjust sentences (for my client Ghassan Elashi in Holy Land, he received 65 years for feeding Palestinian women and children. . . . Of course, the government called that material support; for Dr. Siddiqui, she received 86 years for her convictions of attempted murder of American soldiers by shooting them in a  hotel size room where no one was hit and no bullet holes were found), but the sword of classified evidence, the political nature of these prosecutions and the jurors who are often unfairly used/abused/scared into sending a message about terrorism help insure convictions .  .  . no matter what. I agree with Mr. Remes and another writer who captured the federal court atmosphere in these cases with the headline, “Guilty Until Proven Guilty.” The issue is far more complex than one would realize after listening to the "cognoscenti" on TV; the American public has no idea what goes on in these trials. One of the jurors from Dr. al-Arian's trial, who was a working guy much like my dad, and who voted for full acquittals, said he would never again listen to the news and presume to know something about a trial based on what some talking head had to say. Amen. You ask what forum I would prefer to defend my client charged with terrorism. Others have written more eloquently than I about the infirmities in both forums.  I write not as a scholar, but as a trial lawyer. I must always ask, "How is my client best served?" What is the venue like? Has the local press been virulent, making a "fair and impartial juror" impossible to find? Is the evidence of such a violent nature that military officers in a commissions setting might not be so emotionally affected as ordinary folks? Who is my judge, in either jurisdiction? Trial vs. plea? Who are the prosecutors? I could go on, but I think you get my point. The issue always is far more complex and worthy of discussion that what we are led to believe by the talking heads.