The legal arguments for trying KSM in NYC

Political heat over the White House decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other suspects in U.S. Federal District court on terror charges continues today as Attorney General Eric Holder appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee to explain the decision and takes sharp questions from Republicans about the choice.

But while the decision is politically and even psychologically divisive, the legal reasoning behind the call is clearer -- though that aspect of the choice has been overwhelmed by political rhetoric. For example, start here with this column, which explains that it's reasonable to try a case with civilian victims in a civilian court, and that prosecutors will be able to work though obvious issues, which include possibly tainted evidence, and even the threat of an acquittal. Going back a bit, this post from a former terror prosecutor (and friend) argues that federal courts are well-suited to try terror cases.

But if you don't trust lawyer judgments, perhaps you'll trust recent history, as recounted in this AP story about the Moussaoui trial, held in a Virginia federal court. (Though those hoping for a death sentence for KSM may well see this result as a cautionary tale.)

Whether or not the decision serves larger societal purposes, as this op-ed suggests, it's clear that precedent and expert opinion suggest that -- legally -- civilian courts are an appropriate venue for these trials.