Limits of the American justice system

By conventional wisdom and the exacting nature of the calendar, eight years is a long time. By the vagaries of the mind, human emotion and that nebulous entity known as "history," it's no time at all.

On Friday morning — news broke that the Justice Department saw fit to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed — the supposed "mastermind" of that horrible, gut-wrenching day eight years ago, in a civilian court of law just blocks away from ground zero, along with four other conspirators. Such an event, if it ever comes to pass, will "truly be the trial of the century," as Attorney General Eric Holder said in his announcement.

Tasteless as such a statement may be, Holder's right. The trial of Kahlid Sheik Mohammed (or KSM, as headline writers know him) would make O.J. Simpson's trial look like a children's birthday party. It's also a wrongheaded, potentially dangerous political decision from an increasingly wrongheaded, dangerously political administration.

Suspend context for a moment, and consider constitutional niceties. How exactly is Mohammed supposed to get a fair trial, a right that has been conceded by the administration who is trying him in an American courtroom? How long will it take to find 12 New Yorkers who aren't affected by the memory of that day in some respect? Five years? Ten years? By all rights, and in the same way the trial of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh was held in Denver, so this trial should be moved as far away from New York as possible, to someplace untainted by the events of 9/11. Perhaps Miami or Atlanta. Hell, even Chicago or Detroit might be better suited than the courthouse on Centre Street.

But there's the rub. This is not really about a fair trial, or justice or closure. It's another one of Obama's dreaded "teachable moments," with one eye on the international community all the while. "Look what I have done," you can hear him say. "Look at how civilized and law-abiding we are. You gotta love us now." It is a classic gesture of self-aggrandizement, and another finger in the eye of the Bush administration.

Of course, if this charade does go through, it must be seen to its conclusion. No doubt Mohammed's lawyers will try to keep him as silent as possible throughout the trial. If, heaven forbid, he is allowed to testify in his defense, we will have an Islamic terrorist preaching jihad blocks from the site of the Twin Towers.

Furthermore, horror of horrors, what if the government loses the case on some technicality, like lack of admissible evidence or an unreliable witness? Then, in essence, we will have let an enemy soldier walk free.

And Mohammed is an enemy soldier. As horrible as McVeigh's crimes were, they were the acts of a single, twisted man. They were crimes that the civilian courts in this country are well-disposed to handle. The 9/11 attacks were carried out by a well-funded, well-armed terrorist group, one that enjoys the sympathy and support of millions around the world, as well as the protection of various governments. In short, 9/11 was not just a criminal act, but an act of war, and whatever satisfaction might be gotten from a guilty verdict threatens to be swept up in a resulting whirlwind of terror and hate. To try a terrorist in a civilian court is to attempt to deal with matters that are beyond one's control, and even beyond one's competence.

In 1901, Winston Churchill said: "We live in an age of great events and little men." So far, in their handling of what promises to be the greatest and gravest event of the 21st century, the Obama administration has come up very small indeed.

Samuel Chamberlain is opinion editor.