A military-commission trial finally took place. The tribunal, assimilating the anti-war Left's critique of it, seemed bent on proving it could be even more defendant-friendly than a civilian court. Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's personal bodyguard and confidant, apprehended in possession of surface-to-air

missiles and Qaeda code references for "nuclear," "chemical," and "biological" weapons, was sentenced to an appalling six months in prison (five and a half years minus time already served) on a war-crimes conviction. Hamdan was proved beyond cavil to have helped keep bin Laden alive and the terror network viable. Yet the judge, Navy captain Keith Allred, bought the narrative that a terrorist is not a serious threat unless he is tied to a specific attack. At the trial's guilt phase, Hamdan--though convicted of providing material support to al-Qaeda--was implausibly acquitted of conspiracy, thanks to dubious jury instructions and favorable evidentiary rulings. At sentencing, Allred refused to permit consideration of the 9/11 attacks--the ones that triggered the war in which Hamdan was fighting. Civilian trials carry many national-security risks, but terrorists nowhere near Hamdan's culpability level have routinely been jailed for life. After years of debate, the commissions may prove to be their own undoing.