By what factor does NY trial help terrorism?

Though I understand that trying the terrorists in New York will create a platform, I still think it is important to do so. I kinda think that our American platform of fair trials, etc. is a far more impressive platform than the terrorists. We shouldn't be afraid to showcase it.

Andrea,

If KSM is found not guilty, should he be released?

If Khalid Sheik Mohammed is found not quilty, not actually I do not believe he should, nor will he be released. Does that render the need for a trial moot? Perhaps. But I think the world needs to see that we uphold what we profess.

But Andrea that is the exact opposite of what a trial is. The presumption of innocence is something that we pride in the US (it is even in the UN declaration of human rights, a worthless document written by an institution that ought not exist, but I digress:)

The administration is playing a fool's game. For a trial to be legitimate, the verdict of not guilty simply must be possible, and to hold someone found not guilty goes against everything our justice system stands for.

This is a show trial meant to make George W Bush look bad, as far as I can tell, and every public statement that Obama and Holder make seems to reference the W or the failings of the "past administration." This is a mistake that will blow up in Holder's face, but there is always that whipping boy from Crawford when things go bad......

This is THE trail of GWB, DC, DR, torture; water boarding and every other evil liberal’s have accused the previous administration of.

Mike is right, with the presumption of innocence is not the standard and Khalid Muhammad walking out of the courtroom is not a possibility then the entire trail is a mockery of the American judicial system.

then the entire trail is a mockery of the American judicial system.

So was the OJ Trial, so what.

True mockery would be if you only knew how many "Court cases" were actually determined in the Judge's Chambers and not by an unbiased Jury verdict.

Yes, Sam, the OJ trial was a tragedy and a bogus miscarriage of justice.

However, it was actually a trial, and when OJ was rendered "not guilty," he walked. That is what a trial is.

I realize that our system is deeply flawed, and a great many juries are deeply flawed (heck, folks with important jobs and competence don't want to take weeks to serve well), but this is ridiculous on the face of it.

We are actually having a trial in which the lead prosecutor has already stated that a presumption of innocence does not exist.

Mike, I agree with everything you have stated and you stated it very eloquently.

SheikBen wrote:Yes, Sam, the OJ trial was a tragedy and a bogus miscarriage of justice.

However, it was actually a trial, and when OJ was rendered "not guilty," he walked. That is what a trial is.

I realize that our system is deeply flawed, and a great many juries are deeply flawed (heck, folks with important jobs and competence don't want to take weeks to serve well), but this is ridiculous on the face of it.

We are actually having a trial in which the lead prosecutor has already stated that a presumption of innocence does not exist.

A woman called into a local radio talk-show and said that she was at home with her four year old daughter when the OJ verdict of "not guilty" came down. She reacted so angrily that she did not realize how upset it made her daughter. Her daughter said, "But Mommy, God knows if he is guilty or not..."