Civilian trial of 9/11 accused a brave decision

The decision by authorities in the US to put the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 terror attacks on trial two city blocks from the site the World Trade Center's twin towers is indeed a brave one. And it is also a risky one.

In announcing the decision on Friday to bring Khalid Shaikh Mohammad and four others detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to trial, Attorney General Eric Holder said both the justice system and the untainted evidence against the five are strong enough to deliver a guilty verdict. And he is seeking the death penalty.

Trying the five in civilian court will bar evidence obtained under duress and torture, complicating a case where anything short of quick and certain convictions will empower President Barack Obama's critics. And the case will force US jurists to confront the inhumane and barbaric methods used to collect information from detainees.

Lawyers for Mohammad almost certainly will try to have charges thrown out based on his multiple instances of being subjected to waterboarding.

Can the US government make its case against the accused without referring to information gained from torture?

Can the nature and sensitivity of information bound to come out during the trial be handled in a manner which will allow the trial to proceed at a relatively normal pace?

Can 12 citizens be found in the US, or indeed anywhere else, who are unbiased, impartial and unmoved by the scope and scale of the crimes of which the five are accused?

And can a US court remain aloof and unattached from the frenzy that will occur outside its walls? And what of the outbursts and rhetoric that may become part of the proceedings inside?

And what of a ‘not guilty' verdict?

But the decision is a brave one — far better than secretive kangaroo trials in a Guantanamo cell.