The decision of the Obama Administration to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a man described as the self-proclaimed terrorist mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, along with four other men, in a federal district court in Manhattan, raises difficult issues.

There is some reasonable basis for the decision by Attorney General Eric Holder to try the suspected terrorists in civilian court in the United States rather than as “enemy combatants” before a military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as the George W. Bush administration had planned. The United States has always prided itself as a nation where the rule of law is paramount, and a fair trial of men who are generally regarded as pariahs would reinforce that commitment. Also, the Guantanamo facility had been regarded by many as a symbol of United States oppression, and President Obama has promised to close it. A trial of the key terrorist suspects in Guantanamo (lesser suspects will still be tried before military tribunals) would arguably be inconsistent with Mr. Obama’s strategy of re-engaging with the world.

But the decision to go forward in the civilian courts is also fraught with a great number of problems. For starters, there is the effect of the trial on the place hosting it. Extremely tight security will be required for judges, prosecutors and jurors and indeed the entire New York metropolitan area. Former attorney general and federal judge Michael Mukasey, who presided over the trial of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, fears that a trial creates a very high risk of attack by extremists. Indeed, New York Governor David Paterson has criticized the trials as a “terrible idea”, noting the pain already suffered by New Yorkers, who already “took the bullet for the rest of the country.”

Another concern is trying to find an impartial jury. Virtually everyone in the United States is familiar with the 9/11 attacks and New Yorkers in particular have been personally affected by the carnage. The defendants may move for a change of venue, but it is not clear they are likely to receive a better or fairer hearing elsewhere

The trial may pose major evidentiary concerns. Much of the evidence obtained against the suspects after their capture apparently was obtained through extremely aggressive interrogation methods, including waterboarding, and the introduction of such material probably would not be permitted in a typical criminal proceeding (few of us would favor local police using this type of tactic). Unless there is considerable evidence from other sources, a court confronted with this material will face some very difficult decisions.

And another key concern is whether the trial will provide confidential information to terrorists. Former Attorney General Mukasey is also concerned about this issue, stating that the civilian trial “creates a cornucopia of intelligence for those being tried.” As noted by the New York Law Journal, defense lawyers will be required to obtain security clearances to review evidence that their clients may be blocked from seeing, but this process will be made more difficult if the defendants decide to represent themselves.

A final question is what happens in the seemingly unlikely but possible event of an acquittal. Are the defendants free to go, or will they be detained further? One answer poses a major security risk to the United States, while the other makes the trial something of a sham.

Elections have consequences, and Barack Obama won in 2008 pledging to change the direction of American foreign policy. The question is whether the civilian terrorist trial exacts too high a price in making an emphatic statement.