President Obama and his clan of well informed Liberals have decided that 9/11 attack "masterminds" should go on trial in New York City. Certainly I am not a policy maker but it seems odd to me that one would put prisoners of war on trial in a civilian court (especially when you know that the prisoners were not given any of the other rights guaranteed to them). My take on this is that show trials have finally arrived in America. Are we to believe that it is possible for Khalid Shak Muhammed to be acquitted of all crimes and let go in the middle of Manhattan?

Holder, the US Attorney General, who announced this decision (I won't say he made it because notwithstanding what has been saying this is clearly Obama's decision)is guaranteeing a successful prosecution.

Exit Question: How can he guarantee prosecution in an open trial where one is innocent until proven guilty (beyond a reasonable doubt)?

Critics, in my opinion, are absolutely correct when they suggest that the real trial here is against the Bush administration, against water boarding and other forms of "torture". It has very little to do with bringing terrorist to justice (since they will all be spending the rest of their lives at Gitmo or some other military holding. It's amateur hour in Washington. To say the least it will be interesting to hear KSM's daily monologues in court (think Milosevic at the world course x 100)