Gavel Grab

Both sides are continuing to exchange fire in the  debate over Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to place five 9/11 co-defendants on trial in civilian courts in New York. Some leading newspapers, including USA Today and Washington Post, have featured rival viewpoints in the same day’s publication.

On one page of the Washington Post, columnist Charles Krauthammer contended that alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed “has gratuitously been presented with the greatest propaganda platform imaginable — a civilian trial in the media capital of the world — from which to proclaim the glory of jihad and the criminality of infidel America.” His column was headlined, “Travesty in New York.”

On another page of the same newspaper, two senior Justice Department officials from the Bush administration wrote that “Holder’s critics do not help their case by understating the criminal justice system’s capacities, overstating the military system’s virtues and bumper-stickering a reasonable decision.” The commentary by Jim Comey and Jack Goldsmith was headlined, “Holder’s reasonable decision.”

In USA Today, you can check out  “Our view on prosecuting terror suspects: Unsettling choice for 9/11 trial has one big plus,”or an alternative analysis, “Opposing view: Ditch tribunals entirely.”

Some other intriguing commentaries come from Margaret Carlson, in “Big Apple Justice Fits Man Accused of 9/11,” Bloomberg; Dan McLaughlin, in “Why Terrorists Don’t Deserve a Court Date,” CBS News; Jonathan Alter, in “Home Court Advantage,” Newsweek; and Stephen Paul Smith, in “The Forgotten Defendant of Guantanamo,” Huffington Post. Justice at Stake’s issues page on civil liberties and national security offers background on the topic.