The crime itself happened before we went to war. Precedents for trying it are the earlier attack on the World Trade Center as well as the Oklahoma City terrorist bombing and mass murder in that event.

Everything else is bad. They're hypocritical, decrying torture but using chosen suspects so well known for having been tortured. (And what will it say that these guys get a civilian trial of some kind, but the rest, what of them? Will this simply be a distraction and they won't resolve the Guantanamo situation any time soon, never mind obviously not on the schedule originally promised?) This was a cheap PR stunt. Holding it in New York was stupid emotionalism and an immediate basis for change of venue, obviously. To whom were the Obama people trying to appeal emotionally (which is what this is about, emotion and politics), and why? A show trial appeals only to the basest levels of emotion and people. Was this a (likely) anti-Bush “statement,” a kind of corrupted Carter “high-minded appearance” stunt, to look like “repair and restoration of the reputation of the USA” after the evil Bush-Cheney stain on the natiion's reputation among far-left fringists here and convenient critics in Europe? This decision is inept, clumsy, looks like more flubbing play-pen stuff by elitists out of touch with reality and the public.

Good luck, they and the rest of us, now, sadly, will need it. Silly show trial, cheap PR stunt.

As for the risk of acquittal, that is always a risk. And obviously there are cases when the guilty go free (e.g. OJ Simpson). But if our justice system can be faulted as a whole, it isn't for letting too many guilty people go entirely free – especially at trial.

Father Time raises the community lynching (he doesn't call it that) as a likely response if he were freed. Frankly, I don't think they would free him even if a jury somehow found him guilty.

The bigger problem is finding an impartial jury. How can you possibly find an impartial jury in NYC? And without an impartial jury, you run the risk of an unfair trial. But again, very high profile murder cases run this same risk. We had to import a jury in from Nashville to try the Christian-Newsom case in Knoxville. But people in Nashville certainly heard about the brutal case too – just not as intensely, I suppose, as in Knoxville. Alas, the jury was “more impartial” than one convened locally.

I also think there is a cathartic effect of the NYC community being able to stare this monster down. Don't underestimate the power of a major jury trial to help an affected community take on a malicious offender. There's a reason we call it the “People v. xyz”. Not only is it the state trying a defendant in a legal sense, it is also a chance for the community express its anger through the channels of law and justice. New Yorkers have not had that opportunity – it's just too bad that we didn't do this five years ago.

No worries mate. He simply walks of of the courthouse into the waiting arms of our lovable, forgiving, and, liberally biased, New York street population.

he will be ripped to shreds before he hits the bottom steps.

I think the words. “Bin Ladden you can kiss my white irish ass”, comes to memory.

Yes, just realease him to the New York public.

Meanwhile white collar crime goes on unabated and with nary a guilty plea and forget sentencing.

It is no that I have no faith; it is that I do not have complete faith. There have been too many high-profile cases in our lifetime where obviously guilty people walked free.

You and Elrod are also ignoring the other issue I raised – there is no way this is not spun against us in the Middle East. None. Well, unless he is acquitted and set free.

Scylla and Charybdis.

And people who are known to be guilty get acquitted, too. Are you saying they don't, that no guilty person goes free?

“If the turbin doesn't fit – you must aquit!”

LOL

I truly hope not. This trial will be the biggest of the century thus far – this generation's Nuremburg Trial.
I hope the outcome is the same – at the end of a rope.

Nah…. Better not do that. Don't want to give these clowns a “martyr's death” and help their cause any more than we already have with the waterboarding.

I know…. Let's just give them a daily bath in pig's blood. That ought to get the point across.

Pantywetters on the right have no faith in the justice system. I do.

Hear, hear!!

Thank you for saying it so clearly.

But that's how our justice system works.

If we really don't have evidence that KSM committed the crimes for which he is accused then why do we hold him in the first place? The reason we do is that we have evidence – long before he was waterboarded – that demonstrated his guilt in 9/11.

Remember why he was waterboarded, people. It wasn't to get him to fess up to 9/11. It was to get him to “fess up” to supposed connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. That's why he was waterboarded 187 times – he didn't fess up to any connections between Saddam and AQ because there was no connection.

Holding the trial in NYC is the right thing. Pantywetters on the right have no faith in the justice system. I do.

It's a show trial. The guy should have just disappeared from the face of the earth not made into a celebrity.

What? Mohammed who?

Was he read his rights? Did he have access to an attorney before and during questioning? We already know the answer to those questions. So, there is a non-trivial chance that the courts would rule ALL statements he made inadmissible.

That is just one potential (and truly possible) outcome for many, many issues that any competant legal team will bring up. And this is going to be a wickedly high-profile case, so his defense team will be well stocked, I am sure.

That is why I still say this is a dangerous game. There is only one good result, conviction with a general opinion the court was fair. The likelihood upon a conviction of it being turned into anything other than an indictment of the U.S. not providing a fair trial, particularly in the Middle East and other less than friendly to us States, is close to 0.

And that will be used against us.

Anyone care to guess in advance what the U.N. will say about the trial?

To answer the good “consistency” question, I am guessing they think they can convict KSM without bringing in any state secrets, while they do not think so with other prisoners.