Attorney General Eric Holder’s controversial decision to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo detainees accused of the 9/11 terror attacks in Federal Court in the Southern District of New York will take America down a path it will likely regret. America, not just Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his cohorts, is going on trial, allowing misperceptions of world opinion and US national interest to put America at risk.

The guilt and ultimate fate of the 9/11 five, under the statutes of Title 18, United States Code, is the issue the judge and jury will decide. But those issues could more appropriately have been disposed of by military tribunals, authorized by the US Congress, where war criminals should be tried and punished. They have been used justly and effectively since the Revolutionary War.

What also will be at issue, in the court of world opinion, amidst the media circus and risks of a trial in a New York federal courtroom, is how the United States conducted itself in its pursuit of al-Qaeda after 9/11 and how it will deter and prevent terrorist attacks in the future.

President Barack Obama, highly critical of Bush’s counterterrorism policies and sensitive to world opinion, wants to return to the pre-9/11 approach. His Justice Department will now prosecute the 9/11terrorists as criminals in federal court while trying terrorists who attack military targets abroad, such as the USS Cole, in military tribunals. The stated intentions of Obama's decision to close Guantanamo and Holder’s to try the 9/11 five in New York are to demonstrate “US values” to the world.

Those who support these decisions also point out that we’ve successfully tried dozens of terrorists like Zacarias Moussaoui in US courts; and they argue that trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a military tribunal would elevate his status.

There are many reasons, however, why trying Mohammed and his friends in a New York federal court is a bad idea. Among them are the security risks and the emotional damage reopening this festering wound will cause for family members and friends of 9/11 victims, New Yorkers, and Americans in general. The trial will likely take years, cost tens of millions of dollars; and despite Holder’s assurances that he has an air-tight case, the outcome is uncertain.

Most damaging in my view, however, will be the opportunity the trial will provide for Islamist Jihadists around the world to use it for propaganda and recruiting purposes. America’s critics at home will use it to challenge those who advocate an aggressive war against Islamist Jihadists. Many also see it as a way to “indict” the George W. Bush administration for its “crimes” without having to put senior Bush administration officials on trial.

Of course, there’s the possibility that Mohammed and the others could plead guilty, put up no defense, and the trial would be over quickly and painlessly. That’s what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed intended to do when we were going to try him in a military tribunal. He just wanted to become a martyr as soon as possible and get the whole thing over with.

Now, however, that is highly unlikely. Holder has given the 9/11 five the opportunity to go out in style. He’s made them an offer they can’t refuse by giving them a megaphone and the opportunity to inspire and incite would-be Muslin terrorists for years to come, as the trial plays out in the media and they become revitalized heroes and martyrs.

The 9/11 five, along with Osama bin-Laden, have become the face of al-Qaeda. When they walk into that court room their trial will become an unprecedented media event that people around the world will follow and the liberal press and America’s critics will use to rehash attacks on the Bush administration and its policies. Who knows, before the trial is over, the “tortured” 9/11 five may achieve victim status themselves.

Does Holder really believe that the media in the Islamic world will engage in tutorials on the American justice system and the US constitution? Or will it play up the defense attorney’s accusations of wrongdoing by the US during examination and cross examination of government witnesses--including CIA agents--as it raises motion after motion to obstruct the prosecution?

And then there are the classified information and intelligence sources and methods the trial will reveal. Even though government witnesses will provide this testimony behind closed doors, information will leak out. How much more useful information will we provide terrorists to help them successfully attack us?

Attorney General Holder certainly understands all this. Why then would he decide to take these risks unless he and President Obama believe that, in this instance, the opportunity to sway world opinion somehow advances US national interest?

The bottom line here is simple and straight forward. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the others can be fairly tried and convicted by a military tribunal with little or no risks to US national security, intelligence sources and methods, and America’s moral stature; and they can be tried without reopening yet unhealed wounds. Bringing the 9/11 five to a New York federal criminal court isn’t about the best way to bring these terrorists to justice, its about a world view that allows misperceptions of world opinion and US national interests to put America at risk. How many more Khalid Sheikh Mohammeds and Nidal Malik Hasans must we endure before we understand this.