Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried in a US federal court.

It is good form to actually take the time and read through what the opposition posts in a debate. I have responded to your arguments, and so far as I can tell you have not actually provided any reasons for KSM's trial in a federal court. You have just argued against criticisms made by other people, and all of said arguments were reasons against a military tribunal, not the ICC. In any case, round one of the debate is for posting reasons, not rebuttal. So far as debate etiquette goes, dismissing the need for proof as the opponents responsibility is ludicrous- it is the instigators role to provide evidence for their own argument; the contender does not have to find support for your claims. And honestly, for many of them, I'm sure no proof could be found- you are merely making illogical assumptions which you seem to believe are concrete support for your argument. You have made it clear that you can not comprehend the difference between a military tribunal and federal trial, going to the lengths to claim that critic Bill O'Reilly would not be able to tell the difference either, which is completely unfounded, as is nearly every statement you have made during this debate. Then you have argued that I cannot tell the differences either- with no evidence as to why i should not be able to, instead choosing to make loose statements as to why the US should remain the 'world police'- that the US legal system should be used in preference to the international criminal court because it is 'the legal system established by the Constitution and by democracy' is laudable- democracy does not write law, and the weak meataphor has only served to make you convoluted argument all the more confusing. You have also stated that KSM would need to be trialled again, after an ICC trial, by the federal court. To what gain? If a conviction is met by the ICC court, then surely further trials are a waste of resources, and could only serve to compound the reprimands against KSM. With the loss of life involved in the 9/11 attacks, a life sentence would be the most likely outcome for the ICC trial. But you should be congratulated on your capacity to argue the media influence component of our debate. You managed to jump to the conclusion that I believed that cameras and reporters were allowed into cases. Unfortunately for me, Judge Judy does not preside over federal cases. Damn. In case you didn't realize, I am just oozing the sarcasm right now. Media coverage has always influenced cases- i have not, at any point, stated that the press would be in the room during the trial- I have only proposed that knowledge of the media, and the nation attention, serves to influence the jury's decision in a similar manner to peer pressure in the schooling system, to a much larger degree, of course. The website provided (4) includes a list of how the press has actually changed court decisions from as early as 1892. The instigators argument in the previous round was limited to 'Allowing an international institution with no legitimate authority to override the legal system established by the Constitution and by democracy isn't the best idea' This sentence alone showed a keen misunderstanding of the International criminal court. The ICC has jurisdiction in any situation covered in the ICC statute- this includes any war crimes and crimes of aggression(1). The 9/11 attack is beyond any reasonable doubt a crime of aggression. And your claim that the ICC has 'no legitimate authority' only serves to reaffirm your ignorance of its role in international cases and crimes that go beyond what national courts and law are equipped to deal with. The LRA, The Lords Resistance Army, and the party responsible for the ongoing political and military conflict in Ugandam, is currently having it's 5 top members trialled for war crimes- 'In the situation in Uganda, the case The Prosecutor v. Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti, Okot Odhiambo and Dominic Ongwen is currently being heard before Pre-Trial Chamber II. In this case, five warrants of arrest have been issued against [the] five top members of the Lords Resistance Army (LRA).' (3) It would seem logical to assume that the ICC has legitimate authority, given the cases it deals with. Furthermore, the US delegates actually believe that the ICC statute coincides with the constitution- David Scheffer, who led the US delegation to the Rome Conference states that: "when we were negotiating the Rome treaty, we always kept very close tabs on, ‘Does this meet U.S. constitutional tests, the formation of this court and the due process rights that are accorded defendants?' And we were very confident at the end of Rome that those due process rights, in fact, are protected, and that this treaty does meet a constitutional test.'(2) Finally, you have summed up your fallacious statements by arguing that trial in a criminal court is not 'the best idea'- why, might i ask, is that? You've had three rounds and only produced arguments against media coverage- a digression on my part, and reasons against a military tribunal, which is unrelated as neither of us is arguing this as a conceivable option. Even the one source you have provided throughout the debate refers to a military tribunal- could it be possible, that even by round three, you had not understood that the ICC is NOT the US military tribunal? Due to the instigators inability to construct an argument supported by factual information, and the false allegations they have repeatedly made throughout the debate, I implore you to vote for the contender on this matter. (1)http://untreaty.un.org... (2http://en.wikipedia.org... (3)http://www.icc-cpi.int... (4) http://www.capdefnet.org...