Trying War Criminals in a Civilian Court

So the big announcement is KSM and 4 other Club Gitmo detainees are to be tried in federal court, blocks away from the scene of their (war)crime, while 5 others will see their day before military a commission.

Is this really a good idea? Is it all about keeping a political campaign promise?

Bringing such notorious suspects to U.S. soil to face trial is a key step in President Barack Obama’s plan to close the terror suspect detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Obama initially planned to close the detention center by Jan. 22, but the administration is no longer expected to meet that deadline.

“For over 200 years our nation has relied upon a faithful adherence to the rule of law,” Holder told a news conference at the Justice Department. “Once again, we will ask our legal system in two venues to answer that call.”

The plan that Holder outlined Friday is a major legal and political test of Obama’s overall approach to terrorism. If the case suffers legal setbacks, the administration will face second-guessing from those who never wanted it in a civilian courtroom. And if lawmakers get upset about terrorists being brought to their home regions, they may fight back against other parts of Obama’s agenda.

Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona called bringing Mohammed to New York “an unnecessary risk” that could result in the disclosure of classified information. Kyl maintained the trial of Omar Abdel Rahman, the so-called “blind sheik” who was tried for a plot against some two-dozen New York City landmarks, caused “valuable information about U.S. intelligence sources and methods” to be revealed to the al-Qaida terrorist network.

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said the federal courts are capable of trying high-profile terrorism.

“By trying them in our federal courts, we demonstrate to the world that the most powerful nation on earth also trusts its judicial system a system respected around the world,” Leahy said.

The decision outraged family members of some Sept. 11 victims.

“We have a president who doesn’t know we’re at war,” said Debra Burlingame, whose brother, Charles Burlingame, was pilot of the hijacked plane that crashed into the Pentagon. She said she was sickened by “the prospect of these barbarians being turned into victims by their attorneys,” if the trial winds up focusing on allegations that the suspects were tortured after their capture.

“I don’t think these people should get the benefit of being subjected to our system of jurisprudence,” said Bruce De Cell, whose son-in-law, Mark Petrocelli, was killed at the World Trade Center. “They are terrorists. I don’t think they should be tried in a civilian court.”

The New York case may force the court system to confront a host of difficult legal issues surrounding counterterrorism programs begun after the 2001 attacks, including the harsh interrogation techniques once used on some of the suspects while in CIA custody. The most severe method _ waterboarding, or simulated drowning _ was used on Mohammed 183 times in 2003, before the practice was banned.