Attorney General Eric Holder’s recent announcement that he will prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four of his co-conspirators in New York federal court presents a striking dilemma that crystallizes the debate over the modern approach to the war on terror. Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, was arrested in 2003 and has since been detained at Guantánamo Bay prison. The Obama administration has recently decided to try Mohammed in civilian courts instead of military tribunals.Calling for a demonstration of America’s open and honest justice system, Holder defended his decision as necessary to show the international community that the United States still possesses moral credibility and is, in effect, better than the terrorists. We assert, however, that bringing Mohammed to civilian court will not foster justice, but rather will inhibit it.The central issue that we are concerned with is the shift in mentality Holder’s decision would initiate – from fighting a war on terror to treating Mohammed and his accomplices as common criminals. They are not murderers in the traditional sense; they did not act as independent agents in killing isolated individuals. Rather, they engaged in attacks against the United States as a whole, and were supported by a complex terror network. They are enemy combatants who waged a war on the United States, who ignored the rules of combat and employed tactics aimed at creating terror and targeting innocent civilians. If tried in a civilian court, Mohammed would be entitled to have access to certain classified intelligence documents used to build the case against him. How could the United States feasibly prevent that information from being funneled directly to Al- Qaida and Osama bin Laden?Historical precedent has been to try criminals of war in special war tribunals. The Nuremberg trials that adjudicated the cases of much of the Nazi Germany leadership were conducted as war tribunals. In 1942, the Supreme Court held in Ex parte Quirin that eight German saboteurs – who attempted to destroy war facilities in the United States during World War II – could be prosecuted in military tribunals.The proposed trial also presents very real logistical and security problems: Mohammed was arrested in Pakistan. One can presume that he was not read the Miranda rights. Furthermore, his interrogation included waterboarding. Without passing judgment, condoning or condemning that technique, we question whether any testimony gained through it will be admissible in federal court. Military commissions have different evidentiary standards that would be more appropriate for evaluating Mohammed’s case. Unlike federal courts, tribunals permit the admission of hearsay and lower the burden of proof. These tribunals function in a manner much more appropriate for wartime trials.Beyond the foreseeable evidentiary issues, we question whether an adequate trial jury can be found in the United States. By bringing Mohammed and his comrades to New York, Holder will implicitly be conferring upon them the constitutional rights that guide the treatment of defendants in the U.S. court system. One such right guarantees a trial by an impartial jury. The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were traumatic events that have entered into the collective memory of many Americans. Is it realistic for Holder to assume that he can find 12 people in New York who will be objective in weighing Mohammed’s case? Furthermore, are we really comfortable setting a precedent that would imbue hostile non-citizens with constitutional protections?All of these issues raise the troubling prospect that Mohammed could be acquitted. Holder has assured the American people that – in the event of a not guilty verdict – the military has the capacity and right to detain Mohammed indefinitely. Continuing Mohammed’s incarceration after an acquittal, however, would signal to the world that the military essentially ignores civilian rulings. Sending such a signal would be utterly catastrophic. Georgetown professor of law David Cole recently noted that the Obama administration may be “banking on [the defendants] pleading guilty and not having to give them a trial.” That is a massive risk we are deeply uncomfortable accepting.In an ideal world, civilian courts could serve as an appropriate trial venue. But in this world, the risks and constitutional implications are simply too great to justify this show of American idealism.*To send a letter to the editor on a recent campus issue or Hoya story or a viewpoint on any topic, contact [opinionthehoya.com](opinionthehoya.com). Letters should not exceed 300 words, and viewpoints should be between 600 to 800 words.*”