LawVol, are you observing that the drug courts are more effective than the courts responsible for handling terror crimes?
Unfortunately, I haven't had the opportunity to observe the drug courts yet. However, I did observe a few trials at the JCIP (Justice Center in Parwan) where the terrorism cases are tried. I was told by folks more experienced than I, that the JCIP court would be among the best I would see given that JAGs are embedded with the court. I saw an inability of attorneys to deal with basic forensic evidence. In one particular case, the question involved fingerprints. There is a lack of understanding as to how fingerprints work and how the evidence can be used. It's fixable with some training of judges and lawyers and restructuring evidence classes in law schools, but its does need to be done.

Another issue is that law schools typically do not teach critical thinking. Law is learned through memorization, akin to learning the Quran in madrassas. In fact, a good many lawyers and judges have no formal legal training, but instead are educated in Sharia through madrassas. Some knowledge of Sharia is important since it is incorporated into the Constitution, but the absence of any formal legal training is a problem.

Afghan lawyers will tell you that their Constitution requires the application of Sharia law when the Constitution or statutes have no answer. However, that assertion fails to comply with actual practice or the specific wording in the Constitution. I have no issue with applying Sharia law here (after all it is their country), but practice and written law should match. Unless this happens, there will always be accusations of impropriety, a death-knell for system legitimacy.