After World War II, the victorious nations negotiated amongst themselves how to try the leaders of Nazi Germany. They settled on military tribunals held in Nuremberg. The U.S., Britain, the Soviet Union and France each provided one judge, one alternate and one prosecutor. German lawyers acted as defense attorneys. Twenty-two high-ranking Nazi leaders were tried.

Only 12 were sentenced to death, and only three others got a life sentence. Of the remaining seven, four got jail sentences ranging from 10 to 20 years, and three were acquitted outright.

Would we be comfortable with those odds for the alleged terrorists behind 9/11? We have charged five people with the murder of 2,973 victims, with terrorism and other associated crimes. Would we be comfortable if the Nuremberg ratios applied here? That would mean only two would be executed. One more would get a life sentence. Another would only be sentenced to a decade or two in jail. One would be acquitted outright.

Karl Dönitz was the commander of the German navy and was named by Hitler to be his successor. He was convicted of war crimes and sentenced to a decade in jail. In 1956, he was released, and lived another 24 years before a fatal heart attack. Hitler's Minister of Armaments and War Production, Albert Speer, was only sentenced to 20 years for using slave labor, because he expressed repentance. He was released in 1966 and died in 1981.

Would we be comfortable if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed got that kind of sentence? Imagine the reaction of the American people. Imagine your reaction.

We can't blame President Barack Obama's administration if he wants to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the people they execute did, in fact, commit the acts they are executed for. Indeed, what would be the alternative? Unilateral death sentences by the executive branch, with no appeal, defense or review? So if Obama wants to convince objective, dispassionate people in a fair trial that these five were ultimately responsible for the deaths of 2,973 people, so be it.

But a fair trial may not be what he wants. A fair trial carries with it a chance of error. Innocent people die and guilty people go free. We try to minimize both errors, but punishing the innocent is worse, so we build in many checks and balances. We presume innocence and require proof of guilt. The rules of evidence typically do not allow inappropriately gathered facts or coerced confessions. As Homer Simpson exclaimed after his mother got sent to jail on a technicality, "People should only get sent out of jail on technicalities!" And he's right. That's why technicalities exist.

How would we feel if the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks got off on a technicality? How would Obama look? Do you honestly think that the man who has unconstitutionally overturned the automobile, financial and medical industries, the man who now claims he can examine your cell phone location without a warrant, will allow any justice system to come to a conclusion other than five deaths? His press secretary Robert Gibbs declared on CNN recently that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed "will be brought to justice, and he's likely to be executed for the heinous crimes he committed."

All the terrorists' defense needs to do is raise a reasonable doubt. According to polls, about a third of Americans suspect that 9/11 was "an inside job." Considering that, we'd be lucky to get a single execution. After all, the death penalty requires unanimous agreement by the commission judges.

But that's not the scary part. The scary part will be when Obama somehow, through backroom deals or outright intervention, overturns the results of an independent judiciary. Then, with our economy, society and justice system totally controlled by one man, the terrorists will have won.

My advice to Obama? Do not get involved. Stay away, because this is not your domain. Let the justice system work and hope that it does, but know that if we corrupt it, we do far more damage than an imprisoned terrorist could ever do.

Given Obama's policies on GM, AIG, TARP, Iraq, Afghanistan, health care and the environment, it seems staying away isn't his thing. Total and unilateral control is.

phil@maymin.com