Is The Civil Court System The Right Venue?

Attorney General Eric Holder recently announced the Obama Administration's decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) in New York for his role in the Trade Towers terrorist strike on 9/11.  This marks the decision to criminalize what the Bush Administration had chosen to keep in the world of a military tribunal.

Is this the right place to bring this action?  Is there a risk that KSM will walk?  Has this sent a message to terrorists about the resolve of Americans?

The debate has ensued in a vigorous manner and likely will continue as the trial unfolds.  This seems to be a statement aimed at the Bush Administration's handling of terrorists more so than anything else.  This seems to be part of the pay back to supporters of Obama to payoff his campaign promises, at least in part.  Guantanamo is still open for business, but this will evidence the Obama Administration's commitment to changing the face of America's approach to dealing with terrorists.

Holder sounds certain of his ability to gain a conviction, but is that assuredness simply "whistling in the graveyard" or is it well-founded?  There was apparently no Mirandizing of KSM.  There were, admittedly, some aggressive techniques employed to gain information.  The entire episode to date seems unlikely to be something the civil courts will countenance.  The tactics employed with KSM were those that would most likely be permissible if a military tribunal were sitting in judgment, but they certainly do not seem appropriate for a trial in a civil court system.

This whole twist appears, in my opinion, to be fraught with problems that will inure to KSM's benefit, and that seems to me to be contrary to the best interests of our country.  Terrorism isn't the act taken by a common criminal, and shouldn't be dealt with on the same basis and in the same manner.