List of prominent figures who advocate old standards, not new ones, for trials against terrorists

Glenn Greenwald makes the case today that President Obama's modified military tribunals do not adress core criticism of Bush's MT, and that Obama's campaign position cannot be reconciled with his new position on this issue, since Candidate Obama vowed in August of last year during the campaign, to try terrorism suspects by two methods: Through our courts and the UCMJ.

Greenwald goes on to provide a list of prominent figures and institution who during the Bush years expressed confidence in civilian courts and courts-martial trials as the proper means to try these terrorist suspects:

*Obama himself, during the 2008 campaign (August):

That the Hamdan trial – the first military commission trial with a guilty verdict since 9/11 – took several years of legal challenges to secure a conviction for material support for terrorism underscores the dangerous flaws in the Administration’s legal framework. It’s time to better protect the American people and our values by bringing swift and sure justice to terrorists through our courts and our Uniform Code of Military Justice.

*The NY Times editorial board said in 2001 that it believed that our civilian courts were the right means to try terrorist suspects:

American civilian courts have proved themselves perfectly capable of handling terrorist cases without overriding defendants' basic rights.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/16/opinion/16FRI1.html

*The now Deputy Solicitor General (Neal Katyal) said in 2004 that...

a courts-martial system was the right method to use when bringing terrorists to justice: ]A courts-martial system would have brought the accused to justice far more quickly...

and

Yet it is patently absurd to think that our courts-martial system could not handle classified information. It already does so, day in and day out. We have had courts martial in Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Courts martial are already tooled up to handle evidence seized on a battlefield.
http://www.slate.com/id/2106406/

*Yale Law School Dean and Obama State Department nominee Harold Hongju Koh spoke in 2001 against

the "faulty assumption... that our own federal courts cannot give full, fair and swift justice in such a case" (The hypothetical Bin Laden trial, that is).
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/23/opinion/23KOH.html

*Patrick Leahy in 2001, on military commissions: "it sends a terrible message to the world that, when confronted with a serious challenge, we lack confidence in the very institutions we are fighting for- beginning with a justice system that is the envy of the world"

*Russ Feingold, 2006: “The Constitution is best preserved by reliance on standards tested over time and insulated from the pressures of the moment.”
http://feingold.senate.gov/statements/06/09/20060928.htm

* Anne-Marie Slaughter, now Obama's Director of Policy Planning for the United States Department of State, on 2001:

e've never had an acquittal in U.S. national court when we tried the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center the first time, when we tried them for bombing our embassies, we had no problem getting convictions. And we had no problem getting the evidence and conducting a public trial...

Terrorists should be tried in civilian courts or possibly by international courts.