Is the decision to try KSM in criminal court unfair and dangerous to American jurors

It is hard to speculate on the motivation of others, but Obama's decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed could be construed as asking 12 ordinary American to do for Obama what he does not have the courage to do for himself; convict KSM.

Obama risks nothing new by seeking this conviction in criminal court rather than military tribunal. In fact, he risks less because whatever happens will be the result of the jury, the "system", etc. Typical Obama, kicking the can down the road and passing responsibility.

But what about the jurors ? They are being put in a unique position that is as fundamentally unfair as it is dangerous. It is unfair because they are being put in a position that isn't designed for the task they are being assigned. If there were a poster boy for the need for military tribunals it would be KSM. The jurors are going to be asked to decide his guilt in a framework that was never intended for this type of hearing.

More specifically, they will be asked to determine KSM's guilt under rules of evidence and constitutional protections that may severely limit the admissibility of such evidence. I bet it is safe to assume that KSM was never Mirandized. Would any information or confessions obtained from his interrogations even be admissible ?? Would any subsequent information obtained as a result of those statements ??

If the jury upholds its oath to only judge the case on the admissible evidence, it may be hard pressed to return a conviction if prosecutors find most of their evidence precluded. Let's remember, information was being obtained to prevent other attacks (which may have been imminent) NOT to build a criminal case. I think it is obvious that we do not have forensic teams putting up yellow crime scene tape and collecting evidence on the battlefield. So the jury may be forced to decide between an acquittal for lack of evidence or a conviction in a show-trial lacking compelling evidence.

But those jurors will still likely feel compelled to return a conviction. I still want to believe that most Americans still want justice and don't want KSM to "get away with it". The "it"in this case being murder; actually mass murder. How do they return home to their families, friends and co-workers if they give KSM a pass? Or do they feel forced to betray their oath as jurors and convict anyway? Either way, it is unfair for them to be put in this position.

But even more unfathomable is the danger that Obama is asking the jurors to undertake. The extreme security measures taken in mob trials will pale in comparison to those that will be necessary under these circumstances. Jurors will probably be cognizant of the fact that a conviction will probably lead to them looking over their shoulders for the rest of their lives. It is doubtful that they will always be given protection and Al Qaeda isn't exactly know for letting bygones be bygones. And the sad fact is that the existence of military tribunals allows our citizens not to have to face such danger.

Let me be the first to thank and wish good luck to those brave jurors who have the courage that Obama lacks.