Obama’s decision to try KSM in NYC baffles.  There are no upsides — KSM had already confessed and asked for death– and plenty of potential downsides, such as terror attacks in NYC, jihadi grandstanding during the trial etc.

So why do it?

Some say Obama wants to show the world that we’re still the good guys, giving even murderous scum their day in court. If so, why this?

Sen. Kohl: But taking into account that you never know what happens when you walk into a court of law, in the event that for whatever reason they do not get convicted, what would be your next step? I’m sure you must have talked about it.

AG Holder: What I told the prosecutors and what I will tell you and what I spoke to them about is that failure is not an option. Failure is not an option. This–these are cases that have to be won. I don’t expect that we will have a contrary result.

James Taranto:

“Failure is not an option”? Is Eric Holder attorney general of the United States or some unctuous motivational speaker?

Kohl’s question is highly pertinent, and Holder simply evaded it. No one is suggesting that failure to win and sustain a conviction is an “option,” but it is a contingency for which it is shocking that the administration is, or at least claims to be, unprepared.

Further, Obama’s and Holder’s assurances that KSM will be convicted (and, according to the president, “put to death”) make a mockery of due process. Nothing is more fundamental to America’s criminal justice system than the presumption of innocence, and if terrorist detainees are to be treated as criminal defendants, they are entitled to that presumption.

For the sake of political expediency, Obama and Holder are refusing even to make a pretense of respect for due process. If KSM & Co. are convicted and put to death, America’s critics and enemies will point to Obama and Holder’s assurances in arguing that the defendants were subjected to sham justice. Nice work restoring America’s moral standing, Mr. President.