by what logic?
"What a perverse moral calculus. Which is the war crime -- an attack on defenseless civilians or an attack on a military target such as a warship, an accepted act of war which the U.S. itself has engaged in countless times?Especially ridiculous is Holder's assurance that KSM will be convicted. What if he isn't? Well, then he's in US custody anyway for the rest of his natural life, our tax money hard at work.
"By what possible moral reasoning, then, does KSM, who perpetrates the obvious and egregious war crime, receive the special protections and constitutional niceties of a civilian courtroom, while he who attacked a warship is relegated to a military tribunal?"
Why do any of this stuff? Why grant American rights to non-citizen terrorists? Why spend billions of taxpayer dollars on security in Lower Manhattan? Why risk innocent lives? Why put Gotham on edge? Why disclose classified information to the world? Why give terrorists a roadmap to our tactics and intelligence? Why allow Jihadists a propaganda victory of any kind? To ostensibly put Bush and Gonzalez on trial for 'torture'?
Welcome to the new Trial of the Century. I'd expect this one to go much the same way OJ did.
"Moreover, the incentive offered any jihadi is as irresistible as it is perverse: Kill as many civilians as possible on American soil and Holder will give you Miranda rights, a lawyer, a propaganda platform -- everything but your own blog.
"Alternatively, Holder tried to make the case that he chose a civilian New York trial as a more likely venue for securing a conviction. An absurdity: By the time Obama came to office, KSM was ready to go before a military commission, plead guilty and be executed. It's Obama who blocked a process that would have yielded the swiftest and most certain justice."