Babbling by the brier patch

The decision by the Obama administration to bring Khalid Sheik Mohammed to New York for trial -- a decision we strongly oppose -- seems to have unhinged its defenders in odd ways.

President Obama, for example, spoke Wednesday about the trial as though the outcome was a foregone conclusion. Regarding those who find the idea that KSM will receive all the rights of a criminal defendant an offensive one, the president said, "I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him."

But isn't the cornerstone of American justice the presumption of innocence? What if some judge decides the president's statement is prejudicial? Isn't the president himself a lawyer who should know better?

Then there is Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who was asked Thursday to comment on a legal question raised by Sen. Lindsey Graham. At a Senate hearing, the South Carolina Republican asked Attorney General Eric Holder if Osama bin Laden would be read his Miranda rights, under administration guidelines, if captured.

Sen. Leahy, a cheerleader for the administration's approach on the terrorist trials, told the interviewer, "For one thing, capturing Osama bin Laden -- we've had enough on him, we don't need to interrogate him."

We're not sure how that position comports with the Holder doctrine on terrorist rights, but it's safe to say there are plenty of intelligence officials who believe a thorough interrogation of the terror mastermind would be in order.

Finally, there is the fact, apparently overlooked by Mr. Obama and Mr. Holder, that Khalid Sheik Mohammed actually wants to be tried in New York City so he can broadcast his message of holy war, as The Washington Post reports.

Or as Br'er Rabbit said to Br'er Fox, inwardly grinning all the while, "Skin me, Br'er Fox, snatch out my eyeballs, tear out my ears by the roots, and cut off my legs, but do please, Br'er Fox, don't fling me in that brier patch ...."