What Timothy McVeigh can teach us about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's trial

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/may/04/timothy-mcveigh-khalid-sheikh-mohammed
<snip>
As Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other September 11 suspects face a military commission hearing at Guantanamo Bay on Saturday, the US finds itself on a collision course between its own high-minded ideals of justice and a baser – but undeniably powerful – desire for vengeance. While liberals worry that the Obama administration is betraying its own earlier promises and endorsing a shamefully compromised form of trial, conservatives and law-and-order hawks are less interested in due process than in seeing the men executed by the fastest means possible.

The truth, though, is that high-profile cases involving terrorism or other acts of political violence are notoriously difficult to try under any circumstances – either by military commission or in the civilian courts. Whether or not lawyers and judges brandish the constitution and tout the benefits of an open, democratic system, emotions invariably run high, public opinion and the media invariably bay for blood, and defense lawyers get accused of apologizing for the heinous acts with which their clients stand charged.

None of this should detract from the clear differences between civilian and military courts. An adept defense team in a civilian trial undoubtedly has more leeway to make the challenges and do the digging necessary to unearth a more complete picture – an important public service, regardless of the verdict. And the full documentary record in civilian trials is far more likely to become public, as it now has in the Oklahoma City bombing case. So there is an opportunity, however belated, for full scrutiny.

Ultimately, the debate over KSM's trial is not so much wrong as missing the bigger picture. The question here is not just whether his rights as a defendant are being sufficiently upheld; it is also about getting to the truth. A secretive process with less than rigorous standards of proof is not conducive to establishing that truth or disclosing it. It's a problem in all high-profile cases, whatever the rules of the game. And the best corrective is constant public pressure. This is not just about President Obama placating his Republican adversaries in Congress, or going back on his campaign pledges; it's about having the information to be able to learn from the past and prevent future September 11. Everyone should be able to agree on the wisdom of that.