JustOneMinute

Cathartic Counseling

I suppose one way to treat soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder would be to put them on trial:

Major Nidal Malik Hasan's military superiors repeatedly ignored or rebuffed his efforts to open criminal prosecutions of soldiers he claimed had confessed to "war crimes" during psychiatric counseling, according to investigative reports circulated among federal law enforcement officials.

...

Colonel Anthony Febbo at Fort Hood reportedly told investigators he was twice contacted by Hasan, on Nov. 2 and a week earlier in October, about the question of whether he could legally provide information on "war crimes" he had learned in the course of psychiatric counseling he provided soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Col. Febbo told ABC News he could not comment because of the on-going investigation.

His supervisor in the Department of Psychiatry, Captain Naomi Surman, told investigators that Hasan raised similar issues with her in conversations in October, according to documents reviewed by ABC News.

Captain Surman told investigators that Hasan had formally contacted military prosecutors to report patients he was evaluating, according to people briefed on the exchange. She said Hasan signed his e-mails with "Praise Be to Allah." Legal analysts say psychiatrists are strictly bound by the rules of patient confidentiality except in cases where they might become aware of crimes about to be committed.

I am not a highly trained professional and I know hindsight is 20/20 but these strike me as red flags. 

Josh Marshall, Unafraid - Now.

Josh Marshall makes some cogent arguments in support of trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Manhattan but apparently he is not a careful reader of.... Josh Marshall.

Some cogent stuff first:

And most of the criticism comes under three distinct but related arguments: 1) civilian trials give the defendants too many rights and protections and thus create too big a risk they'll get acquitted and set free, 2) holding the prisoners and trial in New York City puts the city's civilian population at unnecessary risk of new terror attacks, and 3) holding public, civilian trials will give the defendants an opportunity to mock the victims, have a platform to issue propaganda or gain public sympathy.

The first two arguments strike me as understandable but basically wrong on the facts. The third I find difficult in some ways even to understand and seems grounded in bad political values or even ideological cowardice.

Dr. Marshall believes (as do I) that there is plenty of untainted, admissible evidence, that convictions will be a slam dunk, and that we will hold these guys under other charges if lightning strikes and a jury acquits.  

As to putting New York at risk, it is already a huge target, and anyway, we can't give in to terror:

On a more general level, however, since when is it something we advertise or say proudly that we're going to change our behavior because we fear terrorists will attack us if we don't? To be unPC about it, isn't there some residual national machismo that keeps us from cowering even before trivially increased dangers? As much as I think the added dangers are basically nil, I'm surprised that people can stand up as say we should change what we do in response to some minuscule added danger and not be embarrassed.

It's a fair point which I would find more compelling if I were otherwise convinced that these trials made sense.  But Dr. M. rides off the rails here:

And finally we come to the fear of what KSM and the others will say. I don't see what factual dispute there is here. And at some level I don't even understand the argument. Logically I understand it; I understand what they're saying. But it's so contrary to my values and assumptions that at some level I don't get it. I cannot imagine anything KSM or his confederates would say that would diminish America or damage us in any way. Are we really so worried that what we represent is so questionable or our identity so brittle? (Some will say, yes: torture...

Torture?  Is that all he can think of?  Hmm.  If Marshall read Marshall, perhaps he would recall his reaction when news first broke that the Fort Hood shooter might be a Muslim:

This Is Going To Get Very Dark

Multiple news organizations are reporting that one of the suspected gunman, apparently the one who fired most of the shots, at Fort Hood is Major Malik Nadal Hasan, 39. He was shot dead during the shooting.

Dark?  Why?  There are Muslims that hate America - is this news?  Of course, the Muslim connection may have had nothing to do with Hasan's motivation, which Obama himself boldly and insightfully described as "incomprehensible".

Dr. Marshall and Obama himself are in the classic liberal school that see the Great Unwashed of America as a hotbed of racist, xenophobic, anti-Muslim fear and loathing needing only the least spark to ignite our country in flames.  That is why the Hasan incident is "dark" and Obama's first urge (and the Times!) is to worry about an outbreak of anti-Muslim sentiment.

So imagine if Khalid Sheik Mohammed spends his time in the media capital of the world explaining, day after day, the basis in the Koran for devoted Muslims to take up arms against the West.  Will his daily calls to jihad divide this country, setting the rest of America against the Muslims within?  If the news that we had a Muslim shooter at Fort Hood was "dark", why wouldn't a daily call to jihad by a man who killed over 3,000 people be darker?  As to what is so "brittle" in the American identity, Obama and Marshall leave no doubt of their bleak assessment of America's tolerance for religious and ethnic minorities.  Not their tolerance, of course - it is the rest of us that worry them.

Well.  Thinking globally, we had deadly riots in Afghanistan when Newsweek reported on a questionable story of a Koran being flushed down a toilet.  Is there a possibility that KSM can think of something similarly inflammatory to relate, even as Americans continue to fight in Afghanistan?  I am surprised by Dr. Marshall's failure of imagination on this point (although I should note that the official implausible lefty talking point seems to have been that the riots were not linked to the Koran story; this line was also peddled by the Pentagon and I don't know how Dr. M finally positioned himself).

To summarize - should an earnest lib be worried that KSM can use the soapbox of a public trial to inflame the anti-Muslim sentiment that they believe is one sixteenth of an inch below the surface of the American psyche?  And shouldn't the rest of us be worried that KSM can use a public trial to inflame the anti-American sentiment that is often on display around the world?

I hope that helps.  Bet it doesn't. 

UTTERLY UNCONVINCING:  Dr. M suggest a parallel to the trials of the already-defeated:

Does anyone think that Nuremberg trials or the trial of Adolph Eichmann in Jerusalem in 1961 or the war crimes trials of Slobodan Milosevic and others at the Hague advanced these mens' causes?

Does anyone think Al Qaeda is as defeated as Nazi Germany was in 1945, or 1961?  I would look for parallels in the IRA trials, especially if I knew a darn thing about them - the Brits had some ghastly experience applying conventional criminal procedures there.  This famous Conlon trial is probably not a useful comparison (I don't think KSM fabricated his confession), but the IRA hunger strike and the death of Bobby Sands gave the British fits and is something KSM et al might emulate on the world stage.

Yet people are sure we can avoid all this? 

Our Magician Can Beat Your Magician

Bill Belichick, coach of the New England Patriots, was excoriated in post-game commentary for his game mis-management in a stunning loss to the Colts.  The scene:

Here’s the situation: With the Patriots leading, 34-28, and 2:08 remaining, Coach Hoodie elected to go for a first down rather than punt when he faced fourth and 2 from his 28-yard line. Guess he was afraid of what Peyton Manning might do.

Tom Brady’s fourth-down pass to Kevin Faulk was complete but inches shy of the first down. So the Colts took over and went 29 yards in four easy plays, winning the game when Manning connected with Reggie Wayne on a laser-like 1-yard pass with an unlucky 13 seconds left on the clock.

The Times explains that based on league-average performances Belichick made the right call. 

With 2:08 left and the Colts with only one timeout, a successful 4th-and-2 conversion wins the game for all practical purposes. A conversion on 4th-and-2 would be successful 60 percent of the time. Historically, in a situation with 2:00 left and needing a TD to either win or tie, teams get the TD 53 percent of the time from that field position. The total win probability for the 4th-down conversion attempt would therefore be:

(0.60 * 1) + (0.40 * (1-0.53)) = 0.79 WP (WP stands for win probability)

A punt from the 28 typically nets 38 yards, starting the Colts at their 34. Teams historically get the TD 30 percent of the time in that situation. So the punt gives the Pats about a 0.70 WP.

Statistically, the better decision would be to go for it, and by a good amount. However, these numbers are baselines for the league as a whole. You’d have to expect the Colts had a better than 30 percent chance of scoring from their 34, and an accordingly higher chance to score from the Pats’ 28. But any adjustment in their likelihood of scoring from either field position increases the advantage of going for it. You can play with the numbers any way you like, but it’s pretty hard to come up with a realistic combination of numbers that makes punting the better option. At best, you could make it a wash.

Betting that Tom Brady has enough pixie dust to keep the ball away from Peyton Manning and win the game shouldn't seem that daft, but it is very un-NFL.

UPDATE:  Steve Sailer has more.

AND SPEAKING OF ODD FINALES:  How about them Jets?

EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J. — The Jets lost to the Jacksonville Jaguars, 24-22, on Sunday on a last-second field goal that ended a surreal two-minute drill filled with cold calculation by both sides.

...

But for neutral observers, Sunday’s finishing sequence at Giants Stadium was both unorthodox and memorable. It included a Jets defense trying to allow a touchdown to give Jacksonville the lead and the Jaguars refusing to score it. And it had nothing to do with either team trying to lose.

Jaguars running back Maurice Jones-Drew, one of the stars of the game, intentionally dropped to his knee before the end zone after a 9-yard gain to set up the winning field goal while running time off the clock.

Mindful of what some fans care about most, Jones-Drew said, “Tell my fantasy owners I’m sorry.”

He did it to run down the clock because the Jets had no timeouts and the Jaguars did not want the Jets to get the ball back after what was to be a 21-yard field goal by Josh Scobee.

What made it even stranger was the play before that. On first-and-10 from the Jets’ 14 with two minutes left, Jets Coach Rex Ryan told his defenders to let Jacksonville score. Ryan figured it would give the Jaguars a 6-point lead but leave his team time to take the ensuing kickoff and drive the field for a game-winning touchdown.

Because not all of his defenders got the message, Jones-Drew was tackled at the 10 by Marques Douglas and Sione Pouha after a 4-yard run.

“We couldn’t even get that right,” Ryan said.

That forced Ryan to use his last timeout. Jones-Drew dropped to a knee at the 1-yard line on the next play, and quarterback David Garrard knelt on the next two downs to waste more time and set up the winning kick.

Flooding The Memory Hole

Fresh from their triumphant non-coverage of Obama's inappropriate "shout-out" to Dr. Joe Medicine Crow before addressing the nation about the Fort Hood shooting, the MSM (and especially the NY Times) can now not-cover Obama's comical, culturally insensitive bowing handshake to the Japanese emperor.

There have been exceptions, of course - NBC News Chicago, Fox News, and the Boston Globe picked up on the shout-out.  ABC News is pushing the bow on Jake Tapper's blog, as is the LA Times on Andrew Malcolm's blog.

LABEL AND IGNORE:  The Times nods to the bow:

Mr. Obama drew some fire from conservative American bloggers who accused him of going too far to reassure Asian leaders: they complained that he should not have bowed to Emperor Akihito of Japan when he went to the emperor’s residence for lunch.

“During his meetings and his speech in Tokyo, the president observed protocol and enhanced the status of American interests in Japan and across Asia,” said an administration official traveling with the president, who spoke on the condition of anonymity according to protocol. “Those who suggest otherwise are way off base and only looking to score political points.”

Well, it is just partisan right wing hacks, so ignore them.  Evidently Jake Tapper of ABC News is now an honorary "conservative American blogger", and we are delighted to welcome him aboard. 

As to the Times cheerful reliance on "Administration officials" while ignoring outside experts, the behavior of other world leaders, and their own past coverage of Bill Clinton's excellent Asian adventures, well, they are just liberal hacks so ignore them.

The Politico presented a longer version of the same Admin apologia:

“I think that those who try to politicize those things are just way, way, way off base,” the official said. “He observes protocol. But I don’t think anybody who was in Japan – who saw his speech and the reaction to it, certainly those who witnesses his bilateral meetings there – would say anything other than that he enhanced both the position and the status of the U.S., relative to Japan. It was a good, positive visit at an important time, because there’s a lot going on in Japan.”

I certainly agree that the Japanese are far too polite to criticize a visiting President.  But as to the bow being favorably received, well, it was swept under the rug in the Japan Times Online:

Visiting U.S. President Barack Obama met with Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko over lunch on Saturday.

The Emperor and Empress greeted Obama with handshakes at the entrance to the residence in the Imperial Palace before the three had lunch with only an interpreter attending, according to the Imperial Household Agency.

The Kyodo News also went with the whitewash, running a photo of Obama giving a slight bow to the Empress.

News On Japan says that "The emperor and empress greeted Obama with handshakes", which is supported by a photo, but they include a link to a Japanese news video that shows the full bow.

Whitewash it is, then!

Well.  Obama has a trillion in Treasuries to sell.  He is probably figuring that if he bends over now he can persuade the Japaneses to bend... oh, never mind.

Obama To Pakistan: Your Dithering Is Undermining My Dithering

The Times reports that the pot has harsh words for the kettle:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is stepping up pressure on Pakistan to expand and reorient its fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, warning that failing to do so would undercut the new strategy and troop increase for Afghanistan that President Obama is preparing to approve, American officials say.

Pakstan has a subtle concern:

For their part, Pakistani officials have told the Americans that they harbor two deep fears about Mr. Obama’s new strategy: that the United States will add too many troops on the Afghan side of the border, and that the American effort will end too soon.

Their first concern, described by officials on both sides of the recent discussions, is that if Mr. Obama commits an additional 30,000 or more troops, it will inevitably push more Taliban fighters across the border into Pakistani territory and complicate the South Waziristan offensive.

Every time Mr. Obama declares that the United States will not have an “open-ended” military commitment in Afghanistan, he fuels a second concern of the powerful Pakistani military and intelligence establishment, which believes the United States commitment is fleeting.

It is a concern that some of them say justifies Pakistan’s continuing ties to the militants who fight American troops in Afghanistan.

In other words, Obama will commit 30,000 new troops to Afghanistan, the Taliban will hide out across the Pakistani border, and Obama will declare victory and leave.  What are the odds?

The public show of indecision will have consequences:

“Whatever we do — put in more troops or put in fewer troops — they’ll freak out,” said an American intelligence officer who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid jeopardizing his relations with Pakistani officials. But the intelligence officer acknowledged that the long-term security picture and the American commitment in Afghanistan were still unclear. “Look, if I were in Pakistan, I’d be hedging my bets, too,” the officer said. “We need to be much more convincing that we have a better game plan.”

Revolt Of The Seniors

The WaPo tells us that PelosiCare will reduce health services for seniors:

Report: Bill would reduce senior care
Medicare cuts approved by House may affect access to providers

By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 15, 2009

A plan to slash more than $500 billion from future Medicare spending -- one of the biggest sources of funding for President Obama's proposed overhaul of the nation's health-care system -- would sharply reduce benefits for some senior citizens and could jeopardize access to care for millions of others, according to a government evaluation released Saturday.

The report, requested by House Republicans, found that Medicare cuts contained in the health package approved by the House on Nov. 7 are likely to prove so costly to hospitals and nursing homes that they could stop taking Medicare altogether.

Congress could intervene to avoid such an outcome, but "so doing would likely result in significantly smaller actual savings" than is currently projected, according to the analysis by the chief actuary for the agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid. That would wipe out a big chunk of the financing for the health-care reform package, which is projected to cost $1.05 trillion over the next decade.

More generally, the report questions whether the country's network of doctors and hospitals would be able to cope with the effects of a reform package expected to add more than 30 million people to the ranks of the insured, many of them through Medicaid, the public health program for the poor.

In the face of greatly increased demand for services, providers are likely to charge higher fees or take patients with better-paying private insurance over Medicaid recipients, "exacerbating existing access problems" in that program, according to the report from Richard S. Foster of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Here is the report itself; Greg Mankiw has thoughts.

Plumbing The Depths Of The German Mind

I know I need to move on.  I need to let this go, but I just can't shake the mind-bending stupidity of Obama's video address to Berliners in commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the fall of the wall.

I am stuck here, where Obama derided the limited imagination of the newly free Germans:

"Few would have foreseen on that day",... "that a united Germany would be led by a woman from Brandenburg or that their American ally would be led by a man of African descent."

I can hear the conversation between two excited Germans even now, clear as a bell:

Das ist ein unvergesslichen Tag!

Der unvergesslichenest!

And I don't even speak German.  But these two excited voices from the past switched to English:

What history we are living - I see the world changing around us.

What do you see?

Within twenty years Germany will have a woman as Prime Minister.

Like the British?  Big deal.

Yes, but she will be leading a re-united Germany.

The Russians will never allow it.

They won't matter - within a few years the Russians will have lost their own empire.

Really?

Sure - Poland will be a part of NATO.

Poland in NATO? 

Germany will be united but we won't have any Deutschemarks - everyone will have switched to a new currency.

No Deutschemarks? 

And America will have a black President.

America with a black President?  Well, now you have sprang der Hai.  But if you're right, why bore me with that other trivial stuff?  C'mon, does he have a wife, does he have kids, does he wear boxers or briefs...

I have to let go.

Sunday Morning Open Thread

Let's have at it. 

As an aside, if you bet on Obama to apologize for the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki while on the Asian leg of his Global Apology Tour - you lose!  Or at least, you haven't won yet. 

Incredibly, the Smooth Talker had no ready answer for the wildly obvious Hiroshima question.  Which actually is understandable - the only historical research his speechwriters do is re-read "Dreams From My Father".

ERRATA: I am going to excerpt the GQ piece by Draper:

Still, if Barack Obama’s speeches are judged by history to be memorable, it will be because of the words and thoughts that were supplied by him. When [Obama wordsmith] Favreau first read Dreams from My Father, “I was like, I can’t believe this guy is a politician—honestly, I felt like I was reading The Color Purple,” he says. The memoir, bridging the deeply personal with historical antecedents and universal sentiments of struggle and longing, is “the Rosetta Stone of him,” says Rhodes. “In a sense, Audacity is the policy template and Dreams is the character template. And together that’s all you need as a speechwriter.”

Favreau began looting Dreams the moment Senator Obama hired him, in 2005, incorporating elements of it into commencement addresses and later the presidential campaign. Seemingly, every major Obama speech references his memoir: the African father and the Kansas mother and the grandparents serving during World War II; his early struggles as a community organizer (“One of the greatest things I’ve learned from him is that there’s no weakness in talking about failure,” says Favreau); and his travels through Indonesia and Kenya, which find their way into his foreign-policy addresses.

Finding An Impartial Jury For Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Should Be Easy

The NY Post welcomes KSM and his cronies to New York:

Not quite "Headless Man in Topless Bar" or "Ford To New York: Drop Dead", but we get the point.

Waiting For Obama

Via Glenn we see that counterinsurgency guru David Kilcullen is concerned about Obama's dithering:

David Kilcullen, one of the world's leading authorities on counter-insurgency and an adviser to the British government as well as the US state department, said Obama's delay in reaching a decision over extra troops had been "messy". He said it not only worried US allies but created uncertainty the Taliban could exploit.

Speaking in an interview with the Guardian, he compared the president to someone "pontificating" over whether to send enough firefighters into a burning building to put a fire out.

That's an interesting analogy - sometimes a building is just left to burn.  Other times, the fire is fought.  But a fire department would not send in a few guys just to splash water around with no real plan.

Kilcullen expressed concern that Obama might deny McChrystal the 40,000 extra troops and split the difference between the four options, the kind of fudge common in domestic politics.

"Time is running out for us to make a decision. We can either put in enough troops to control the environment or we can credibly communicate our intention to leave. Either could work. Splitting the difference is not the way to go," Kilcullen said.

"It feels to me that all these options are dangerously close to the middle ground and we have to consider whether the middle ground is a good place to be. The middle ground is a good place on domestic issues, but not on strategy. You either commit to D-Day and invade the continent or you get Suez. Half-measures end up with Suez. Do it or not do it."

I am personally leaning towards "Don't do it", partly because of the difficulty and expense of achieving something like success and partly because we clearly do not have leadership committed to this.

FWIW, last October Kilcullen told CNN upon his return from Afghanistan that 25,000 additional troops were a minimum.

Send Better Kabuki!

Mickey Kaus offers a cheerful suggestion for those clinging to the hope that Team Obama is not hopelessly divided and confused on Afghanistan - it's all a show to make Obama appear informed, prudent, and resolute!

If you were about to recommend a troop increase that was unpopular, especially with your Democratic base, wouldn't you precede it with some drama like this to demonstrate that you are a) in charge, b) not being conned, and c) insistent on a withdrawal as quickly as possible? Just asking. ...

Well, it's all very dramatic.  But if this is a stage show, is it really written in a way that ends with Obama appearing masterful, rather than beleagured?  And the kabuki does not end with a showdown Congressional vote and polite applause - the Afghanistan decision is only the beginning, after which Obama has to sell America and NATO on a strategy he obviously has had a hard time buying himself, and he will be leading an Administration which has revealed deep divisions.

I think the Group Facilitator-in-Chief loves to draw out a range of viewpoints, restate them cogently, and synthesize them into compelling new arguments.  I bet his meetings end with everybody feeling as if they have been heard and with everybody able to recognize a bit of their input in the final product.  That was a great knack when the topic at hand was the next issue of the Harvard Law Review, but this issue is even more consequential.  Really.  And I think the debate has gotten away from him.

I am not getting a kabuki vibe here.  I see it more as "Brokeback Mission" actually - I picture Obama looking mournfully at Karzai and saying "I just can't quit you", after which Obama drunk-dials McChrystal at 3 AM and asks him how they can get back to the feeling they had last spring when their strategy was new and the world was full of promise.

But it would be great if Mickey was right.

A STRAW IN THE WIND:  Providing an unexpected surge of optimism, the Times front-pages a piece explaining that in Afghanistan we don't need a general, we need a community organizer.

Afghan Enclave Seen as Model for Development
By SABRINA TAVERNISE

JURM, Afghanistan — Small grants given directly to villagers have brought about modest but important changes in this corner of Afghanistan, offering a model in a country where official corruption and a Taliban insurgency have frustrated many large-scale development efforts.

Since arriving in Afghanistan in 2001, the United States and its Western allies have spent billions of dollars on development projects, but to less effect and popular support than many had hoped for.

Much of that money was funneled through the central government, which has been increasingly criticized as incompetent and corrupt. Even more has gone to private contractors hired by the United States who siphon off almost half of every dollar to pay the salaries of expatriate workers and other overhead costs.

Not so here in Jurm, a valley in the windswept mountainous province of Badakhshan, in the northeast. People here have taken charge for themselves — using village councils and direct grants as part of an initiative called the National Solidarity Program, introduced by an Afghan ministry in 2003.

Before then, this valley had no electricity or clean water, its main crop was poppy and nearly one in 10 women died in childbirth, one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the world.

Today, many people have water taps, fields grow wheat and it is no longer considered shameful for a woman to go to a doctor.

If there are lessons to be drawn from the still tentative successes here, they are that small projects often work best, that the consent and participation of local people are essential and that even baby steps take years.

Fortunately, in their great wisdom the American people have elected the man for the job.  Can we succeed in Afghanistan?  Yes we can!  Or at least, the Times is pretending so today.

Hit The Road, Jack

Obama is out of the country yet again; McQ explains why no one misses him:

On a separate subject, my theory as to why he’s going so much has to do with his realization that he is in over his head and as his poll numbers and popularity sink here, he seeks a narcissistic boost elsewhere. One of the main reasons, as some have theorized, he didn’t go to Berlin is there wasn’t enough about him in the program. Of course that didn’t stop him from inserting a totally irrelevant fact that when the wall fell those there at the time wouldn’t have imagined the US would have a president of “African descent” in office in his two minutes speech.

Could be!  But let's be fair - Obama was actually making a stronger statement about the limited imagination of the typical German of November 1989, when he explained that:

"Few would have foreseen on that day",... "that a united Germany would be led by a woman from Brandenburg or that their American ally would be led by a man of African descent."

Great point about the chick leading Germany!  No word from Margaret Thatcher.

Palin On Auto-Pummel

Ann Althouse holds her coat while Sarah Palin pummels herself.

Ms. Palin is a great American but I don't think she would be much of  President.

So Now Khalid Sheikh Mohammad Is A 9/11 "Suspect"

The NY Times has joined the dance being performed by Team Obama, which has decided to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a Manhattan Federal Court - the accused is now a "suspect":

Key 9/11 Suspect to Be Tried in New York 
By CHARLIE SAVAGE

WASHINGTON — Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and four other men accused in the plot will be prosecuted in federal court in New York City, a federal law enforcement official said early Friday.

By way of contrast, the WaPo is going with "Accused 9/11 mastermind".  Let me ask a silly question - is the 9/11 Commission report prejudicial?  I don't see the word "alleged" being tossed around in their description of KSM's background and activities.  So what would a fair trial look like - any juror in Manhattan familiar with the 9/11 attack and the ensuing government investigation would be barred?  Who would that leave in the jury pool - the utterly clueless and people who are familiar with the 9/11 Commission results but figure the government lies all the time?  Great news for prosecutors.

The PowerGuys ask a much better question:

Ask yourself this question: suppose that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's trial results in an acquittal or a hung jury. Would the Obama administration really let him go? If so, they are crazy. If not, why are they holding the trial?

That is a good question!  So good, in fact, that Obama was asked just that while speaking with the press in Japan:

Q       Thank you, Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister.  President Obama, how can you assure the American people that a trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, now that your administration has now decided will take place in a civilian court in New York, will be safe and secure, but also not result in an innocent verdict for him?

...

PRIME MINISTER HATOYAMA:  Mr. President?

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  With respect to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, I believe that the Attorney General is going to be making an announcement this morning in the United States, this evening here.  I don't want to preempt his news conference.  This is a prosecutorial decision as well as a national security decision.

Here's the thing that I will say.  I am absolutely convinced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be subject to the most exacting demands of justice.  The American people will insist on it and my administration will insist on it.  And I'm sure we'll have additional things to say after the Attorney General's press conference.

Hmm.  The Administration hinted at a post-acquittal detention policy last summer - do the American people insist on show trials where an acquittal means nothing?  Or is Obama going to let some poor fool at Holder's press conference walk us through the show-trial aspect and deliver the assurance that an acquittal won't set KSM free?

And what are these trials going to look like?  As the Times and WaPo explain, a lot of the evidence may not be admissible under normal Federal rules.  Do we ignore the rules, or acquit KSM on technicalities?  And will the typical voter gain confidence in Obama's commitment to keeping us safe as evidence is tossed and the CIA is denounced?

Beyond that, Ann Althouse wonders whether New Yorkers want to become the most high-profile terror target in the world? 

Team Obama has to postpone these trials until after the 2010 elections or this will go down as the biggest "own-goal" of the century millenium.

OH, MAN:  The Baseball Crank tells us what he really thinks in an epic tirade; a flavor:

It's impossible, really, to caricature this White House; even Josiah Bartlett didn't run through this many liberal stereotypes in his first season. Obama needs new writers. Blow up the World Trade Center and kill 3,000 Americans? Jail! Don't buy health insurance? Jail! Win the Nobel Prize for doing jack squat. Travel to Copenhagen to beg and grovel unsuccessfully for the Olympics, and pledge to go visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but blow off traveling to Berlin to commemorate the victory of freedom over Communism (then give a tepid speech on the subject that refuses to acknowledge Ronald Reagan). Commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland by unilaterally abandoning missile defense installations in Poland. Insult and disdain one faithful ally after another - Britain, India, Israel, Poland, Colombia, you name it - and cozy up to our enemies, with nothing to show for it - nothing to show for anything he's done in foreign affairs.

I left out the really harsh stuff.