What if Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is found "innocent"?

[WhiteHouseForum]

A lawyer once told me that jury trials are nothing if not unpredictable. There's certainly jury verdicts that have surprised the public, the most notable that comes to mind is the OJ Simpson case.

So what if Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM) is found "innocent"? With all the talk about whether KSM is an enemy combatant and the logistical problems surrounding the trial, there hasn't been much thought or discussion given to this ultimate possibility.

Proponents of trying KSM as a civilian in federal court cite our national sense of justice and the message that it would send to the international community. But are these messages getting through in light of the fact that the White House is stating they are confident KSM will be found guilty and executed even before the trial is held? It just seems to me that the international community would see this trial as just a "show". Would an individual sympathetic to KSM really believe that he would be afforded a "fair" hearing just because it's being held in civilian court? Or would they just tell themselves "those evil Americans are at it again, they can't fool us with this courtroom charade"? And when he is found guilty, it would just reinforce their thoughts.

But what if, due to some courtroom technicality, KSM is found "innocent"? Do we just let him walk out of the courtroom a free man? This sounds inconceivable but if we are concerned about sending a message of our national "core values" and belief in the system of justice, what other choice would we have? To hold him after he has been found innocent would do more to damage our national credibility on the international stage than if we had just taken him out and shot him.

And if we do let him go free, would that somehow make those who hate us now have some sort of change of heart? Would they say "the U.S. is a nation of laws so let's not try to blow them up anymore"? Or would they just laugh and say "they're a bunch of fools"?

It just seems like a lose-lose situation from the standpoint of sending some sort of message about our system of justice.

So is it, as some have suggested, just a way to shine light on Bush's policies regarding torture? As much talk there was awhile back about torture during the Bush years, I can almost see that as being the "upside" that was considered. But I think the public is tired of hearing about what Bush did or didn't do at this point. And when the media starts covering the trial and the circus and outlandish statements that's inevitably going to follow, I think the public sentiment regarding what is or isn't torture is going to sway against this administration. And if KSM is found "innocent", then I think all bets are off.

I believe, no matter what the original motive was for treating KSM as a civilian, it's a no win situation for President Obama and the Democrats. Perhaps they will use the recent objections to the trial being held in NYC as a way to back out of this potentially check-mate situation.