For those concerned about the likelihood of success in the upcoming 9/11 prosecutions in New York, you should understand that the DOJ believes it can be successful.  For example, the United States Department of Justice, in a June, 2006, report, outlined its overwhelming success in prosecuting terrorism suspects in the United States courts. I would encourage reading at least the Executive Summary section of the report, which includes this:

Our international terrorism and terrorism-related cases draw on the full range of criminal charges available in the federal criminal code, according to the facts and circumstances of each case. The material support statutes have been a cornerstone of our success in terrorism financing cases as well as in a wide range of other cases addressing all types of support to terrorism. Our effective use of these statutes has allowed us to intervene at the early stages of terrorist planning, before a terrorist act occurs. We also have effectively used other terrorism and weapons of mass destruction statutes, and have drawn on more general statutes, such as immigration fraud and false statement offenses, where they apply in terrorism investigations. These statutes of more general application have been so important to our disruption efforts that U.S. Attorneys’ Offices around the country have undertaken numerous initiatives to expand their use of these statutes to further our prevention strategy.

Our successful prosecutions have produced cooperating defendants who have, in turn, provided intelligence information to investigators, prosecutors and national security officials, leading to further investigation, disruption and prosecution. This is one of a number of classic criminal enforcement approaches discussed below. Cooperation with our foreign partners has led to counterterrorism successes in foreign courts as well as in our own, and we discuss some of these cases in which such cooperation has been critical to success.

As for those concerned about the defendants making a spectacle out of the trial, and using it as a platform, I would ask why you believe that the statements from such individuals are more powerful than a presentation of the evidence against them in open court? Is our country (or our system of criminal justice) so fragile that it cannot stand strongly against the words of killers?

Further, compare the results obtained in terrorism cases in the courts versus the record of military convictions as of November 2008.

Although some have defended the commissions as an efficient form of military justice, their track record in prosecuting terrorism cases has been abysmal. Since their establishment, the commissions have concluded only three cases, two after trials and one based on a guilty plea. During the same time period, the federal courts have tried more than 107 terrorism cases, obtaining 145 convictions. Several defendants have been sentenced to life in prison.