By Matthew Rusling

    WASHINGTON, Nov. 25 (Xinhua) -- The decision to try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a federal court in New York City has stirred heated debates among U.S. experts.

    On one side are those who believe the decision was justified, while on the other are those who argue the case is better suited for a military tribunal.

    And in between are those who believe the case fits neatly into neither category.

    Mohammed stands accused of masterminding the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington that took nearly 3,000 lives, sparked wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and prompted former President George W. Bush's war on terror. The alleged architect of terror was captured in Pakistan in 2003.

    A HOLE IN THE LAW

    George Friedman, CEO of Stratfor, a global intelligence company, wrote on the firm's Web site that Mohammed's case exposes a hole in U.S. and international law.

    The Geneva Conventions, which dictate how prisoners of war are to be treated, do not mention non-state actors covertly attacking foreign countries.

    "The actions of al-Qaida simply were not anticipated in the Geneva Conventions," he wrote.

    And while Mohammed cannot claim prisoner of war status -- the conventions require combatants to identify themselves as such with uniforms or insignia -- he does not fit neatly into the category of criminal law either.

    "In criminal law, it is assumed that law enforcement has captured the prisoner and is well-versed in these rules," such as the reading of Miranda rights and dealing with evidence, said Friedman.

    "The fact is that international law has not evolved to deal with persons like Mohammed," he wrote. "A new variety of warfare has emerged in which treatment as a traditional POW doesn't apply and criminal law doesn't work."

    A DEBATE OF IDEOLOGY

    Still the debate continues along ideological lines, with many Republicans blasting U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try Mohammed in federal court --they favor a military court --and many Democrats and human rights advocates championing the move.

    John B. Bellinger, fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and formal legal adviser for the U.S. Department of State and National Security Council, said the ideological split sets the case apart from prior federal trials of alleged terrorists.

    That dynamic played out in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this week when Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., called the decision to try Mohammed in New York "dangerous" and "misguided".

    The ranking Republican echoed critics who contended that Mohammed could use the trial to air his political views and New Yorkers who worry about security risks in a courthouse just blocks from the site of the World Trade Center attacks.

    Conversely, Holder said the federal court holds the greatest chance of conviction and noted that more than 300 terrorists have been convicted in U.S. federal courts and are serving time in U.S. prisons.

    Robert Alt, deputy director of the Center for Legal and Judicial studies at the Washington, D.C.-based Heritage Foundation, countered that there are military commissions set up specifically for such cases.

    "It strikes me as a little thin," he said of arguments contending that military courts are less experienced in prosecuting alleged terrorists.

    One of the dangers of hearing the case in a federal court is that classified information could be leaked, which occurred during the trial of convicted terrorist Omar Abdel-Rahman, for example, said Alt.

    But Bellinger said federal courts are used to dealing with classified information and have for years used procedures that have worked well.

    Conversely, military courts are not accustomed to handling cases of such magnitude, he contended.

    While some terror cases are appropriate for a military tribunal, Holder's decision makes sense, as Mohammed violated a federal criminal law, said Bellinger.

    It is also essential to demonstrate that U.S. courts grant all defendants equal rights under the law, he said.

    "It is critically important that we show that these trials are fair," said Bellinger.

    "The trial would be a chance to showcase to the world the horrors of the 9/11 attacks and reduce sympathy for the perpetrators in certain regions around the world," he said.

    Steven Simon, fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and former National Security Council official, added that many in the Middle East view military trials as the worst form of justice.

    Alt, however, said Obama is "cherry picking" which cases go to federal courts and which go to military tribunals.

    "If sending a message of fairness to the world through the trial of a selected group-- and not all of those accused --is the goal, I would say (Obama) is sending mixed message," he said, adding that there is little legal rationale behind the administration's decision.

    Bellinger said no matter where Mohammed is tried, the case would end up in a civilian court anyway.

    While the initial trial would be heard by military judges, appeals, even for military trials, are handled in federal courts, he said.