Mohammed criminal court trial-- right or wrong?

It's fitting. Two blocks away from where his diabolical plot killed 3,000 people, Kalid Shaikh Mohammed will be put on trial. Some find it fitting the self professed mastermind behind 9/11 will face the citizens of New York once again. Others find it sick and twisted that a person responsible for 3,000 deaths can be given the same rights as an American citizen. Personally, I am torn.
I do find it fitting that the trials, or whatever method used to bring Mohammed to justice, are being held in New York. Not only does it make sense from a logical standpoint, but it makes sense from an emotional standpoint as well. Logically speaking, the crimes committed by Mohammed were committed in New York City, hence 9/11. Therefore it is only logical that the trials be held in New York City as well. From a more emotional standpoint, it is only fitting that the city who suffered the most from the 9/11 attacks get the first taste of justice by eliciting a conviction in their own courts. That is of course, if there is a conviction.
For the most part I agree with liberals on matters like these. We should not think ourselves to be so high and mighty we are above the rule of law in our country. However, in this case justice is no longer a term to be thrown around lightly-- it is a necessity. If the self professed mastermind of 9/11 were to be let off the results would be nothing short of disastrous for the American people. Is that disastrous result worth the glorified and didactic moral justice the Obama Administration seeks to obtain?
Sure, it is some statement to make to world. It shows the world hat we no longer belive ourselves to be above the rule of law we expect other countries to abide by. After eight years of hypocrisy-- eight years of breaking international and U.S law in the name of justice-- it is always important portray ourselves in a different light. Trying Mohammed in a criminal court does just that. However, does a conviction, and all the glory that comes with it, really justify the risk we take of getting an acquittal? Shouldn't we be afraid of a modern version of an OJ Simpson trial? A highly publicized trial which leads to a high publicized acquittal. Shouldn't we try to avoid that scenario by all means?
Luckily for us, generally self confessed criminals don't do well in court. Furthermore, it is not like we have not tried terrorists before. Terrorists such as Omar Abdel-Rahman (Blind Shiek), Richard Reid (Shoe bomber), and Zacarias Moussavi , who was convicted of 9/11 conspiracy, were all successfully tried in criminal courts and face life sentences. Conservative pundits and politicians seem to think sending Mohammed to prison gives him a recruiting opportunity; that holding a trial in New York will put it at risk of another terrorist attack, that the trial will only motivate more terrorists. They are wrong. However, one point they make I can understand. Conservatives argue that Mohammed should be tried in military court. Despite all the evidence that Mohammed will be convicted the conservative point begs a question out of me: Why can't we try Mohammed in military tribunals? Technically, they are "enemy combatants" or even prisoners of war. It would be legal to try them in military tribunal.
The problem with trying Mohammed in a criminal court, despite the overwhelming evidence against him, is the very way the government obtained that evidence. Through illegal torture. It is a very huge possibility that the judges will not turn a blind eye to the methods used by the Bush Administration to collect information let alone the defense attorneys. Yet, despite this overwhelming possibility Attorney General Eric Holder claims he has the evidence necessary, without or without the judge noticing the "enhanced interrogation techniques" for a conviction.
Yet despite Mr. Holders comforting words, I still can't help but be reminded of trial in 1994 where a college football star gets a away with murder in a highly publicized trial despite overwhelming evidence which point to the contrary. Why take the risk? With the help of some suppressed evidence Khalid Shaikh Mohammed could very well be the next OJ Simpson. What would happen then? Hopefully, we won't ever have to answer that question.