so let me "weigh in" on khalid sheik mohammed. now first of all the legal approach to these cases has been an insane tissue of contradictions. so: the opponents of a civilian trial say: 9.11 was an act of war, not a crime. well then, he is a prisoner of war or an alleged war criminal and must under treaty be treated as a prisoner of war or an alleged war criminal: treated according to the geneva conventions and tried in the hague, for example. but no: he's not a soldier, not a general: terror is not war (these same people say during a different three-minute slice): he's not in uniform; does not represent a state. now this combination of assertions (for short, p and not-p) is why we can do exactly anything we feel like to him at any time, for example, waterboard him hundreds of times over a period of months, or torture him continuously for years. that is, as any logician will tell you, anything follows from a contradiction.

now one of many reasons why you don't want to produce him in open court is because he can reveal highly sensitive national security info. after someone says that, see what they adduce. for example: he can reveal interrogation techniques that we use on (alleged) terrorists. now when someone makes that argument, be clear. they are saying that he will reveal the war crimes of the bush administration. that is, he possesses sensitive classified info  because he was tortured, whatever his crimes may or may not be. and obviusly, you can't introduce evidence obtained under torture, for extremely good reasons.

but really when republicans make the classified info argument they are foreseeing the trials of their own (former) leaders on war crimes charges, or at least a series of investigations. that if nothing else is why the status and the facts and the reasoning have to be utterly obscured under layers of contradictory claptrap.

at any rate. yes, try him in court. try to restore some semblance of sanity, legality, and consistency. but a million problems are going to arise. that much is right.