Today, millions of voters in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia head to the polls for those states' presidential primaries. According to the Washington Post, record turnouts are expected for both parties. The impetus for this massive swell of civic engagement appears to be the fact that, for the first time in a long time, the voters in these states matter to the outcome of the primaries. This is particularly true on the Democratic side. My candidate, Barack Obama, has an advantage in pledged delegates, in fundraising, in the number and new and returning donors, and in overall momentum. Nonetheless, the outcome remains uncertain, and we are a long way from victory in this primary.

Over the past few weeks, I've talked about the primary choice for Democrats with a number of my friends and colleagues. The basic question has always been the same: "Why are you supporting Barack, Phil?" My answer is always the same to: "Because he's the candidate who inspires me." His story, his ideas, his message, and his vision — these are all things that I want for America. I don't dislike Sen. Clinton; quite the contrary, I respect her record a great deal, and am proud to have her represent my state in the United States Senate. However, I am supporting Barack Obama because he inspires me. I believe he has the character and judgment to lead this country at a time when we need true visionary leadership in the Oval Office.

After hearing reports from friends in the field who are working on the Obama campaign, I've got a lot of hope today for the Potomac Primary. They're fired up; they're working hard; they're finding a groundswell of support out there among men and women who want change and leadership too.

After more than six years of work on the military commissions involving repeated trips to the D.C. Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court — the U.S. Government has finally brought the charges for which the system was originally intended. According to a DoD news release just issued, the Defense Department has formally charged six detainees now held at Guantanamo with the planning and execution of the 9/11/01 attacks on the United States.

The accused are: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarek Bin ‘Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi, and Mohamed al Kahtani.

Each of the defendants is charged with conspiracy and the separate, substantive offenses of: murder in violation of the law of war, attacking civilians, attacking civilian objects, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, destruction of property in violation of the law of war, terrorism and providing material support for terrorism.

The first four defendants, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarek Bin ‘Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, and Ali Abdul Aziz Ali are also charged with the substantive offense of hijacking or hazarding a vessel.

All of the charges are alleged to have been in support of the attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.

Now that sworn charges have been received, the convening authority will review the charges and supporting evidence to determine whether probable cause exists to refer the case for trial by military commission. The chief prosecutor has requested that charges to be tried jointly and be referred as capital for each defendant. If the convening authority, Susan Crawford, in her sole discretion, decides to refer the cases as capital, the defendants will face the possibility of being sentenced to death.

The charge sheet details 169 overt acts allegedly committed by the defendants in furtherance of the Sept. 11 events.

More more to follow later — just a brief note now. This is big. It's the climax of 6+ years of legal work, litigation, legislation, and political armwrestling over how America will treat its enemies in the global war on terrorism — and more broadly, whether we are fighting a global "war" or something else. Suffice it to say that the U.S. Government has a position, and that is that we are indeed at war, and that these men can indeed by tried by military commissions for their crimes against the law of war. Further, according to the U.S. Government, these men can be treated in a certain way (i.e. subjected to coercive interrogation practices) because of their status as unlawful enemy combatants, and they may be specifically tried by this particularly legal vehicle. Many of those positions have been challenged; some have been ruled unlawful by U.S. courts. Regardless — all of these positions are about to be presented, ventilated, tried and decided again through the military commissions process, to the extent the commissions allow judges to consider them. Keep your eyes on this one.

Update I: On today's Wall Street Journal front page, Jess Bravin has a well-timed piece previewing the charges filed (updated this afternoon), as well as a photo essay showing the actual facilities at Guantanamo whese these trials are to be held. Jess has consistently had the best coverage of these commissions, and this story is no exception. He writes:

For Col. Lawrence J. Morris, the newly installed Guantanamo chief prosecutor, the day is a long time coming. Six years ago, as head of the Army's criminal-law branch, he had been assigned to plan the first military commissions -- a process designed to prosecute suspected terrorists captured around the world. At that time, he proposed a high-profile public trial that would lay bare the scope of al Qaeda's alleged conspiracy while burnishing the ideals of American justice.

Instead, people familiar with the process say, he was sidelined by the Bush administration. Senior officials had decided to interrogate captured al Qaeda leaders in secrecy rather than swiftly bringing them to justice -- a tactic they figured might help stave off future attacks. That left Guantanamo prosecutors to pursue minor characters who might quickly plead guilty.

But instead of racking up rapid convictions, the prosecution effort stumbled through internal disarray and legal setbacks. Meanwhile, Guantanamo's reputation was stained by allegations of inmate abuse, erroneous detentions and a sense that the U.S. saw itself free to act outside existing law.

Whether the outcome would have been different if Col. Morris had prevailed in 2001 and 2002 is hard to know. But the Bush administration, after being hit with a series of adverse legal decisions, including one landmark Supreme Court case in 2006, decided the time had come to bring the big cases to trial.

Col. Morris returned in November to oversee the prosecutions, and in the process potentially rescue a central part of the president's legacy.

* * *
Col. Morris says that like the epic 1945 Nuremberg trials, which documented the Nazi regime's crimes, the Guantanamo proceedings will reveal the scope of the al Qaeda conspiracy.

"The biggest thing you will see is the sophistication of the al Qaeda operation," says Col. Morris, 51 years old. If anyone still thinks the 9/11 terrorists just happened to be lucky amateurs, they will see "the methodical, military-like fashion" by which al Qaeda planned and executed the attacks.

Slate colleague Fred Kaplan has a nuanced, thoughtful profile of Defense Secretary Robert Gates in today's NYT Sunday Magazine. Fred travels with Gates to Fort Hood, Texas, where he sits in on a few sensing sessions with troops and their families, interviews Gates in Washington, and talks with a number of folks inside the inner sanctum of the Pentagon. The result is an article which provides insight into how Gates has navigated the difficult issues of Iran, Iraq, and the relationships between OSD and the rest of Washington.

Gates casts himself as something of a reluctant old warrior -- brought out of a comfortable position at Texas A&M.; Here's how Fred ends the piece:

Part of Gates’s appeal may be that he seems to come from an earlier era — one that was in some ways deadlier but in other ways calmer, more predictable. “My view of how foreign policy gets made was very much shaped by the fact that I’ve spent most of my career during the cold war, where the fundamental strategy was embraced under nine different presidents,” Gates told me in his Pentagon office. It was a time when political leaders understood that “if you’re to have any enduring goals, they have to have bipartisan support. And that’s shaped my approach to Iraq and a whole bunch of other things.”

It was easier to forge consensus when the world was divided into the realms of two superpowers and America’s main task was to stand guard on the border and keep the Russians at bay. It is much harder when power is dispersed and achieving our “enduring goals” is said to require intervening — and taking casualties — in a faction-frayed Iraq. Can counterinsurgency, which by its nature involves long, twilight struggles against murky foes, be a lasting legacy for Gates or a viable centerpiece for U.S. policy? Can the Army be persuaded to embrace it? Can the public?

When the next president takes the oath on Jan. 20, 2009, Gates will be just 65 years old, but he insists he will retire from public life, this time for good. A friend recently gave him an electronic key chain, inscribed “The Gates Countdown,” with a small screen reading out how many days remain till the end of the term. He carries it everywhere, in part as a joke but not entirely. Told that those screens can be reset, he replied, “Not this one.” When I mentioned that some lawmakers would like him to stay on in the next administration, he replied, “I am very wary of saying, ‘Never,’ ” but added, “The circumstances under which I would do that are inconceivable to me.”

Arrayed around his office are photos of his remote lakeside house in the Pacific Northwest — as far away from Washington, D.C., as almost any spot in the continental United States. On one wall is a painting of nearby Mount Rainier. He said that he tells visitors, “Those pictures are there to remind you I don’t have to be doing this.” Gates’s press secretary, Geoff Morrell, tried to brighten the mood: “I don’t want you to leave the impression — you’re still having fun in this job, though, aren’t you? I mean, you enjoy what you’re doing, no?” Gates stared at him, for about 10 seconds. Finally, he turned back to me and said: “I consider that, like our soldiers, I’m doing my duty. There are a lot of other things I’d rather be doing. But this is important.”

No doubt -- Secretary Gates is a fine public servant who is making a difference every day he works in the Pentagon's E-Ring. But the hour is late, and much damage is done, and it remains to be seen whether he can accomplish the Herculean tasks before him.