Attorney General Eric Holder made a gutsy call by choosing to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, one of the confessed masterminds of 9/11, in a Manhattan federal court. Holder announced the Department of Justice’s decision on Friday, and the weekend became consumed with debate over the advisability of the decision.

Many Republicans, and even some Democrats, lambasted the decision for putting American lives at risk. They argue that acts of terrorism are equivalent to acts of war and should be handled by military tribunals outside the United States.

Rudy Giuliani, New York’s mayor at the time of the attacks, cited the long precedent of trying enemy combatants in military courts. “We wouldn’t have tried the people who attacked Pearl Harbor in a civilian court in Hawaii,” he said.

Supporters of the administration’s decision say New York’s legal system is prepared to handle and convict Mohammed. They hope to regain America’s credibility as a nation respectful of human rights by putting terrorism suspects through civilian courts whenever possible. After the Bush administration denied detainees’ rights to counsel, Geneva Convention protections, or habeas corpus, Obama and Holder want to show the world that America extends its legal protections even to its enemies.

I sympathize with the Obama administration. Trying Mohammed in federal court says that nothing, even attacks as horrific as 9/11, can derail this country’s devotion to justice. It sends a message to would-be terrorists that we will rise above their hatred and violence and give them the benefit of a fair trial; we will be better than those that seek to destroy us. It proves that terrorism strengthens this country’s resolve and reinforces, rather than undermines, our commitment to our values and institutions.

But for that to work, the trial must be legitimate. That means the outcome can’t be foreordained. The prosecution will argue that Mohammed is guilty and the defense will (presumably) argue that he’s not. And then 12 men and women will weigh the evidence and decide whether to kill, lock up, or release Mohammed.

The government says it has a rock-solid case, and it probably does. All the evidence, including Mohammed’s own confession, seems to point to his guilt. But the defense will surely try to discredit the prosecution’s case on the grounds that the confession, and who knows what other evidence, was obtained through the use of torture. Juries are notoriously unpredictable; it is far from certain this one will return a guilty verdict.

If Mohammed is found not guilty, he will be released, possibly into the United States. Given his anti-American polemics, he will almost certainly attempt to attack us again. Given his long history of successful terrorist bombings, he will almost certainly succeed.

Obama and Holder seem confident that the benefits to be gained from trying Mohammed as a civilian are worth that risk. I hope they’re right.

Nathaniel French is a junior theater studies major. He can be reached for comment at [email protected].