When CIA officers waterboarded confessed Sept. 11 terrorist mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed 183 times, they never imagined their actions would be cited by defense attorneys in a civilian court.

With Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to transfer the zealot and his four alleged accomplices from Guantanamo Bay to the United States for trial, the Obama administration is attempting to introduce a measure of integrity to a process corrupted by torture and the betrayal of American values.

Opposition to civilian trials in this country for the five alleged terrorists has been swift and mostly partisan. Conservatives accuse Mr. Holder and the Obama White House of risking embarrassing procedural setbacks that could potentially work to the defendants' advantage.

Others worry that a civilian trial will expose intelligence sources and methods that will ultimately give al-Qaida insight into American counterterrorism efforts and frustrate plots already in motion.

Mr. Holder's decision to put the accused on trial in a federal courthouse two miles from Ground Zero has elicited howls and gnashing of teeth unprecedented in the annals of official Washington wimpiness.

Even so-called macho men like "America's Mayor" Rudolph Giuliani argue that a Manhattan terror trial paints an unnecessary target on the city. Where does all of this knee-knocking and teeth-chattering come from?

This is the kind of paternalism that never ceases to sell New Yorkers short. They live with the threat of attacks daily whether a terror trial is being prosecuted or not. Without a doubt, New Yorkers are among the toughest and most resilient civilians on the planet. They're not hiding under their beds at the prospect of a terror trial, no matter how many opportunistic politicians pretend otherwise.

While many believe opposing the president's agenda is its own justification, there is an unseemliness to the current fear-mongering that goes far beyond the usual cynicism and political gamesmanship.

Some of these scoundrels would have us believe that the United States is nothing but a bastion of cowards who aren't prepared to accept any level of risk that involves the prosecution of terrorists on our soil.

Nothing could be further from the truth. We're still a country where the rule of law and the weight of evidence mean something. Our legal system is capable of handling the trial of a murderous zealot who confessed to masterminding 9/11 even before he was waterboarded.

While it is true that Osama bin Laden inspired the attacks on New York and Washington, D.C., it was Khalid Sheik Mohammed who planned and executed the murder of more than 3,000 people on Sept. 11, 2001.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why any self-respecting New Yorker called to jury duty on the trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed wouldn't want a piece of that action.

Speaking of Osama, there's still a remote possibility that the leader of al-Qaida will be cornered in the badlands of Pakistan by American Special Forces one day. If nothing else, Osama seems to have a strong instinct for self-preservation. He has never been in a hurry to martyr himself.

Most of these chicken-hearted politicians haven't thought about what they would say if Osama is captured alive. None of those grousing about the dangers of terror trials in Manhattan would be intellectually honest enough to oppose Osama bin Laden being dragged to the United States to answer for his crimes.

We would be justified in rejecting any politician stupid enough to make such an argument with a straight face. It's hard not to have contempt for such cowardice.

Tony's Take on Comix by Tony Norman is featured exclusively in the Opinion section on PG+, a members-only web site from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Our introduction to PG+ gives you all the details.