In case you have been wondering about the differences between a military commission and federal criminal courts, the Congressional Research Service has just published "Comparison of Rights in Military Commission Trials and Trials in Federal Criminal Court."

Here is the introduction:

Attorney General Holder’s decision to try certain detainees in federal criminal court, including
those accused of conspiring to commit the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and to try other detainees by
military commission, has focused attention on the procedural differences between trials in federal
court and those conducted under the Military Commissions Act, as amended. Some who are
opposed to the decision argue that bringing detainees to the United States for trial poses a security
threat and risks disclosing classified information, or could result in the acquittal of persons who
are guilty. Others have praised the decision as recognizing the efficacy and fairness of the federal
court system and have voiced confidence in the courts’ ability to protect national security while
achieving justice that will be perceived as such, particularly among U.S. allies abroad. Some
continue to object to the planned trials of detainees by military commission, despite the
amendments Congress enacted as Title XVIII of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Military Commissions Act of 2009), P.L. 111-84, because they say it
demonstrates a less than full commitment to justice or that it casts doubt on the strength of the
government’s case against those detainees.

This report provides a brief summary of legal issues raised by the choice of forum for trying
accused terrorists and a table comparing authorities and composition of the federal courts to those
of military commissions. A second table compares selected military commissions rules under the
Military Commissions Act, as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009, to the
corresponding rules that apply in federal court. This table follows the same order and format used
in CRS Report RL31262, Selected Procedural Safeguards in Federal, Military, and International
Courts, to facilitate comparison with safeguards provided in international criminal tribunals. For
similar charts comparing military commissions as envisioned under the MCA, as passed in 2006,
to the rules that had been established by DOD for military commissions and to general military
courts-martial conducted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), see CRS Report
RL33688, The Military Commissions Act of 2006: Analysis of Procedural Rules and Comparison
with Previous DOD Rules and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, by Jennifer K. Elsea. For
additional analysis of issues related to the disposition of Guantanamo detainees, including
possible trials in federal or military courts, see CRS Report R40139, Closing the Guantanamo
Detention Center: Legal Issues, by Michael John Garcia et al. For information about legislation
with relevance to Guantanamo detainees, see CRS Report R40754, Guantanamo Detention
Center: Legislative Activity in the 111th Congress, by Anna C. Henning.