Jake Tapper asks the question, but more interesting to me is this answer by Eric Holder:

Attorney General Eric Holder brushed off the question, saying, “I would not have authorized the bringing of these prosecutions unless I thought that the outcome — in the outcome we would ultimately be successful. I will say that I have access to information that has not been publicly released that gives me great confidence that we will be successful in the prosecution of these cases in federal court.”

What is the purpose of a trial if you will only use it when the verdict is assured, but won’t release the accused when it is not? The idea put forth by the left that civilian trials of non-American combatants are necessary for justice is completely undermined here.

All prosecutors consider the likelihood of achieving a guilty verdict when bringing a trial, but normally the choice is between a trial or letting the defendant go free. KSM is not going to go free regardless of whether this trial is held, nor should he. We already know he is guilty.

The decision, only made when a guilty verdict is assured, to hold a civilian trial in lieu of a military tribunal shows just how pointless such trials are. They are a stage act – pure theater put on for the benefit of a certain part of the President’s constituency. Eric Holder has essentially admitted that there is no justice-based reason why KSM is being tried in civilian court instead of the adequately equipped, and better suited, military tribunals established for the purpose. He is doing it simply because it provides opportunity to pander to an untenable position hatched in thoughtless opposition under President Bush.

The latest Friday news dump involved the announcement that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, along with four other terrorists, will receive a trial in civilian courts in New York City.  This unwise decision is not about justice.

Mohammed has already confessed to his crimes – over two years ago.  This “trial” will provide him an unnecessary platform on which to pontificate, grandstand, and spread his Jihadist filth.  Our enemies will handed a magnificent propaganda tool for no good reason.

Leftist commentators, in defending this move, have suddenly found Constitutional religion while pointing to our founding document’s protections as justification.  But these protections apply to Americans or residents, not foreigners apprehended overseas for waging war against our country. Affording them Constitutional protections when they have no obligation to uphold the duties it places on the rest of us is what would really make a mockery of it.  It is a contract upon which they have never signed, and would just as soon spit on as do so.  Why should they receive its benefits?

It is not only the administration’s opponents that are troubled by this decision. Democratic Senator Jim Webb said in a statement, “Those who have committed acts of international terrorism are enemy combatants, just as certainly as the Japanese pilots who killed thousands of Americans at Pearl Harbor.  It will be disruptive, costly, and potentially counterproductive to try them as criminals in our civilian courts.”

This is not to say that there should be no due process; merely that it need not take the same form as those provided for Americans.  As it turns out, that process already exists through military tribunals that have already been established – over much political wrangling.   Why jettison them now?  Our tribunals were more than capable of rendering fair verdicts in a situation where sensitive information and methods would not be exposed to our enemies.  But that has been tossed aside in favor of a show trial in New York.  And we can rest assured, this trial will be quite the circus – one which we’ll all likely leave with pie on our faces.