to consider fears of a terror attack at KSM's trial overblown

Charles Krauthammer is probably the conservative writer I respect most, and I agree with most of what he wrote in his most recent article.  However, Krauthammer briefly pays lip service to an idea being trumpeted by some conservatives, including Rudy Giuliani, that holding a trial in Manhattan invites a terrorist attack.

"Apart from the fact that any such trial will be a security nightmare and a terror threat to New York -- what better propaganda-by-deed than blowing up the courtroom, making KSM a martyr and turning the judge, jury and spectators into fresh victims? -- it will endanger U.S. security."

I'll admit that KSM's trial is an inviting target.  But KSM will not be the first terrorist tried in New York City.  And moreover, New York City itself is what makes an inviting target all on its own.   There have been nine known plots against New York City since 9/11, including two in the last 6 months.

"New York City will remain a terrorist target for many reasons other than the Gitmo Five trial. It is also interesting to note that none of the city’s other high-profile terrorism trials has ever resulted in a retaliatory attack against the city."

Anybody who plans to attack Manhattan during the KSM trial would likely plan to attack Manhattan regardless.

to distinguish KSM's trial from Nuremberg

I have reached my wit's end when it comes to fatuous comparisons of KSM's trial to Nuremberg.  

Margaret Carlson writes, "The fair trial of Mohammed will make a great courtroom drama someday, on par with “Inherit the Wind” and deserving of comparison to the Nuremberg trials."

Michael Smerconish gushes that Senator Specter "was thinking of the Nuremberg trials when he invoked the 'American values' and the 'great many safeguards' the country will extend 'to these blaggards.'"

Do these people realize that Nuremberg came after the war?  Do they think the Allies would have held trials for the likes of Goering during the war?  Churchill himself had to be talked out of supporting summary execution for Nazi officials.  And the Allies weren't exactly reading Axis POWs their Miranda rights.

Now, the comparison would make sense if the war was over, but Holder himself says we are still at war.  That led to a pretty thorough smackdown by Senator Lindsey Graham, who understandably can't figure out why some get military tribunals, why others are getting federal trials, and just what kind of message the Administration is sending to military units still capturing enemy combatants on the battlefield.

Again, I want to give the Administration the benefit of the doubt on how the trial against KSM will proceed, even acknowledging that the deck is stacked.  But I'm skeptical as to how much they thought through the application of their decision to future prisoners.  But in the Administration's defense, as made clear with these other people comparing this to Nuremberg, apparently the Administration isn't the only failing to make that distinction.

to know KSM's trial is a sham no matter how it proceeds.

A lot has been said on both sides of the aisle since Attorney General Holder's decision to give KSM a trial in the Southern District of New York, and most of it has been white noise.  As for the propriety of Holder's decision, I think the most salient article I've read about it was written by George Friedman (and it's so coherent I doubt he's related to Tom).  Friedman succinctly states, "A new variety of warfare has emerged in which treatment as a traditional POW doesn’t apply and criminal law doesn’t work."  Instead of taking sides to task, George Friedman simply points out that the tenets of international law that international law enthusiasts rely on were simply never crafted with 21st century substate terrorist groups in mind.  No surprise there.  Friedman believes that in a perfect world, the wisest thing to do would be to revisit international norms to come up with a new method for dealing with the type of scenario we find ourselves in.  But let's face it, when it comes to the international community, we're far from dealing with a perfect world.

Regardless, Holder has made his decision to pigeonhole Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's case into the framework of a federal trial.  One of the themes I've seen repeated by liberals is that trying KSM in federal court instead of a military commission is "following the rule of law" or "demonstrat[ing] our moral legitimacy."  That would be news to the father of our country, who conducted military commissions during the Revolution and ordered the summary hanging of Benedict Arnold if he was caught.  And that involved state actors in a declared war no less!  But the real irony in Blickstein's insistence that a federal trial is "following the rule of law" is that the United States or the presiding federal judge is going to have to not follow the rule of law to convict KSM.