I must admit, I’m a bit conflicted about the whole Kalid Sheikh Mohammed controversy. Both sides of the argument valid in a certain context. Mayor Guliani was on the Sunday talk shows this weekend, and of course we all know where he stands on the issue. From CSM:

In this particular case, we’re reaching out to give terrorists a benefit that’s unnecessary,” [Guliani] said on ABC’s “This Week.” “In fact, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, when he was first arrested, asked to be brought to New York. I didn’t think we were in the business of granting the requests of terrorists.”Attacking Democrats for not being hawkish enough on security matters has long been a chestnut of Republican campaign rhetoric. But President Obama’s painstaking approach to policy has opened him to criticism in recent weeks from people who want a harder line against terrorists from Afghanistan to New York to Cuba.

Indeed, there are major challenges to face when putting someone like KLM on trial, maybe too many. But there seem to be some major PR advantages as well. That is, to treat terrorism, not as a valid expression of anti-Israel or anti-USA sentiment, but as a fundamentally criminal endeavor. Doesn’t this undermine the vision these terrorists have of themselves and their cause.Of course, you don’t want a trial to become an open-mic-night for KLM and his buddies. So you might consider barring cameras from the courtroom. And I admit there are a whole host of other problems to deal with, i.e. classified materials and whatnot. But I think, in principle, there is nothing wrong with putting a terrorist “on trial.”Anyone think I’m crazy or naive?