Blawgletter just got back from a short trip. You may only guess at our surprise when we learned that high profile lawyers, including Rudolph Guiliani, oppose trying 9/11 planners for mass murder in any civilian court, let alone the one nearest Ground Zero.
The foolish venuing, they argue, will give the likes of mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed a better chance at acquittal — presumably from the current odds of snowball's chance in hell to when monkeys fly out of Mr. Guiliani's flaring nostrils. (Note: Mr. Mohammed confessed to 9/11 — and a whole bunch of other terrorist plots and attacks. In court. Without waterboarding.)
The critics also worry about grandstanding by terrorists. By which we infer they mean more than usual grandstanding. Because they do that a lot already. In case you hadn't noticed.
The nay-sayers also decry the high cost of security in Foley Square and around Manhattan. And yet the guy who runs the main local supplier of security, New York City, said fine. Plus, the U.S. did try (and convict) an earlier group of terrorists in the same spot without incident.
But we really just want to point out that saying something bad could happen may cost little and may produce a big pay off in the event the prophecy comes true. (Althought it also may cost a lot if it fits a pattern. See Chicken Little; The Boy Who Cried Wolf.) Pushing fear triggers loss aversion, which posits that humans strongly prefer avoiding losses to achieving gains. (You'll feel much worse about losing $100 than you'll enjoy gaining $100.)
Finally, we wonder why Mr. Guiliani, et al., have said nothing about the civil cases, pending in the same courthouse, against Mr. Mohammed and other perpetrators of 9/11 attacks, for upwards of eight years. See In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, No. 03-MDL-1570 (S.D.N.Y.). Don't they count?