9/11 trials, again

I'm compelled to post again about the 9/11 trials. I've been having trouble wrapping my head around the objections. Evidence, charges, trial, punishment. Seems like an ingenious process to me.

Charles Krauthmmer complains:

September 11, 2001 had to speak for itself. A decade later, the deed will be given voice. KSM has gratuitously been presented with the greatest propaganda platform imaginable -- a civilian trial in the media capital of the world -- from which to proclaim the glory of jihad and the criminality of infidel America.

We faced Hitler and Hirohito but can't handle a rant from a jihadist! I might rewrite that paragraph this way: September 11, 2001 had to speak for itself. A decade later, the victims will finally see justice. The United States has gratuitously presented itself with the greatest propaganda platform imaginable -- a civilian trial in the media capital of the world -- from which to proclaim the glory of the US Justice System and the criminality of terrorists.

Though he does have a point here:

Moreover, everyone knows that whatever the outcome of the trial, KSM will never walk free. He will spend the rest of his natural life in U.S. custody. Which makes the proceedings a farcical show trial from the very beginning.

Exactly. Trying someone who seems clearly guilty but was tortured in detainment for years presents some issues. Maybe we shouldn't do that anymore.