Been out of the thread for a bit, but wanted to add a little. Going back to the thrust of the debate, I believe it to be the wisdom in choosing a Civilian Court trial vs. a Military Commission, and a debate over whether or not the outcomes would vary. The admissability of evidence has been one of the issues raised. Let me elaborate and add to that.
1) The judges in a Military Commisiion are also the jury. As such, they rule on what they let themselves hear. They regard themselves more highly than a common civilian jury, and the pattern has been for them to want to hear the evidence, then decide how much to pretend not to matter because of torture and coercion.
2) The verdict need not be unanimous with a Commission. 2/3rds will do.
3) While evidence may be categorized as obtained by "torture" or "coercion", Military Commissions are also granted leeway in whether or not they will allow it. If it is deemed to have probative value, that is to be deemed significant enough, they can allow it. Or they can allow it for partial consideration. This will also vary based upon whether or not the coersion occurred before or after Dec 30, 2005, when the Detainee Treatment Act went into effect.
More about Military Commissions here:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/manual-mil-commissions.pdf
There is no doubt that the average defendent has somehwhat less Constitutional protections with a Commission. It can also be argued that most defendents there are not U.S. Citizens to begin with, and therefore do not have all the same protections as an American citizen to begin with.
However, just the above three differences allow for the possibility of verdicts different from the Civilian process, weighted against the defendent. There are other advantages/disadvantages, but they do not go to evidence and verdict.