Trying Terrorists in NY-Appropriate Course of Action?

Obama’s decided Friday that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other terrorists specifically involved with the September 11^th attacks on the World Trade Center would be tried in the U.S. federal courts rather than by military commission. Many believe the case is more appropriate for a military court, citing deficiencies in the capability for a Federal Court to conceal classified information related to national security and additionally suggesting a deficiency in the federal court’s prosecuting aptitude. Still others argue that holding the trial in New York City would reopen wounds for the mourning families of 9/11 victims and risks ensuing riots if one or more of the terrorists were unsuccessfully convicted. While trying the terrorists in New York inevitably risks the possibility of an unfavorable verdict resulting in unsatisfactory closure for victims and a blow to American national pride, the opportunity to hold the trial at the very location of the injustice is too meaningful to pass up. We should remain confident in the capability of our federal courts, widely reputed to be the best judicial system in the world, to handle the case. According to the New York Times, in the years since 9/11 the Justice Department has brought 119 federal court terrorism cases against 289 defendants, with a conviction rate of 91.1 percent. Furthermore, our unbiased federal court system holds much greater credibility than the secretive military court which has a history of utterly disregarding the unalienable rights and due process of the accused. We should hold this momentous trial in the public eye for all the world to witness in order to provide ultimate closure and uncontested, legitimate retribution for the 9/11 terrorists.