One more KSM post before we move on to other business. A riveting exchange here, not because it’s contentious but because it isn’t: Our heroine very politely stresses that she doesn’t want her son’s murderers given a soapbox to rant and rave, and Holder very politely tells her to trust in the justice system and the secret evidence that’s going to bury KSM. Which, again, is super, but doesn’t solve the problem of setting legal precedents that’ll be used by lesser terrorists against whom no super-secret evidence exists.

Beyond that, I want you to watch this clip because the meme du jour on the left — trumpeted by Kos, natch, but also echoed by The One in defending Holder’s decision to try KSM in Manhattan — is that it’s “cowardly” to worry about the trial turning into a propaganda opportunity for Al Qaeda. Presumably this woman is an exemplar of that “cowardice.” Nutroots idiots have made a habit over the years of accusing righties of being gutless about terrorism, even though they’re the ones who wring their hands incessantly about “creating more terrorists” by, say, using drones in Pakistan or waterboarding the guy who planned 9/11. But it’s one thing for the nutroots to do it and another for the Attorney General to do it. An embarrassing footnote from this morning’s testimony via Andy McCarthy:

Holder: “I am not scared of KSM.” Submitting a war criminal to a military commission is not an exercise in fear; it is an exercise in justice. We already know all about what kind of animal KSM is, thanks to the exrtraordinary information that has come out in the military proceedings and the CIA interrogations. You could fill a book a book with it, which the 9/11 Commission did. We don’t need to bear the risks of a civilian trial either to learn more about KSM or so Mr. Holder can show how brave he is.

I doubt Holder or Obama cares about using the justice system to prove how “brave” they are, but the fact that the same guy who said “failure is not an option” while blathering about fair trials thought it was a smart enough point to be worth raising in congressional testimony tells you what kind of hands we’re in here. Exit question one: Are we to understand from the “cowardice” accusation that the left sees no threat at all posed by jihadist propaganda, especially in a forum as visible as a Manhattan “trial of the century”? No problem with jihadist websites, say, or jihadist cable news channels, maybe operating right here in the U.S.? Don’t be cowardly now. Exit question two: Hey, Holder — when do these guys get their trial? Click the image to watch.