Reversing course from a previous statement by the President favoring military tribunals for terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay, Attorney General Eric Holder has announced that five of the terrorists from Gitmo allegedly involved in the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks — Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarek bin Attash, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Ali Abdul-Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi — will be tried in civilian courts in New York City.

Of course, civilian courts on US soil operate under different rules than do military tribunals, even with the expanded due process protections enacted by President Obama when he made announced his tribunal policy in May.  For one thing, there's a presumption of innocence — a presumption notably missing from Attorney General Eric Holder's statement before a Senate panel in which he proclaimed that, regarding the prosecution of these five terrorists, "failure is not an option".  When asked about the possibility of the jurors disagreeing and acquitting the "suspects" (thus deciding that failure is an option), he assuaged concerns with his opinion that "I don't expect that we will have a contrary result."  Well, then.

So while the terrorists will be tried in a civilian court, they will be presumed innocent; yet the nation's top prosecutor announces to the prospective jury pool that failure to convict is not even an "option"?  An option for whom?  Does this mean that the typical rules governing a civilian trial concerning evidence, admissibility of confessions (particularly those resulting from the "enhanced interrogation techniques"), and other rules and procedures, will be ignored?  If so, why bother bringing them to civilian court, why not define a tribunal with the necessary sidestepping?

While AG Holder insisted that the civilian court would wield the same outcome as a military tribunal, Senator John Kyl of Arizona challenged the logic of such a statement, pointing out that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was ready to plead guilty before the tribunals; now, he must be tried.  No matter how confident Mr. Holder may be, a 100% chance of a "guilty" plea is certainly preferable to a chance for acquittal, even if the probability is 1% or less.  And never mind the appeals, first of which would have to be the venue; who in New York City would be capable of serving as an "impartial" juror in a courthouse only blocks away from where the Twin Towers smoldered?

If the decision itself is a mistake, at least the prosecutors are top-notch.  As reported by the private intelligence firm Stratfor in a Global Security and Intelligence Report:

 "[t]he staff of the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York has gained considerable knowledge and expertise prosecuting terror cases over the years ...  It was in the Southern District of New York in 1995 that Omar Abdel Rahman, aka the Blind Sheikh, was tried for the so-called Landmarks Plot of 1993 and received a life sentence. In 1996, Abdel Basit (aka Ramzi Yousef) and two co-conspirators were also tried in the Southern District and sentenced to life in prison for their roles in the Bojinka Plot, which also included an indictment for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (the staff of the Southern District has been familiar with Mohammed for some time now). The attackers behind the 1998 attacks against the U.S. embassies were also prosecuted in the Southern District of New York and sentenced to life imprisonment. Few other courts have so much experience handling and prosecuting high-profile terrorism cases...

Stratfor also details capabilities of the NYPD, FDNY, and U.S. Marshals Service Special Operations Group to provide safety and security to New York while the trial proceeds, should it remain in NYC.  But however professional and competent the security apparatus may be, it still isn't as safe and secure as a Naval base on the island of Cuba, 90 miles from American soil.

In announcing the end of "enhanced interrogation techniques", the eventual closing of Gitmo as a detention facility, and the end (and subsequent resumption) of military tribunals, Obama and his Administration have justified their actions as being more fair and equitable than those taken under his predecessor, President Bush.  But how fair is a trial where the outcome is preconceived, and a "not guilty" verdict is potentially ignored?  President Obama is attempting one of the oldest and most well known of cliches:  he is attempting to have his cake and eat it too.  In doing so, he offends common sense:  a preconceived outcome (i.e., one where "failure is not an option") is simply not consistent with a fair trial.  The President is taking a huge risk, for little, if any, potential gain.