KSM Trial In New York City: Irrational Rationalization

If KSM were to go on trial in NYC, wouldn't ANY competent defense attorney immediately request a change of venue? And is there any doubt that it would HAVE to be granted?

I've heard liberals say on TV they think he should be tried at the Twin Towers site to send him a message and to give those killed there the last word so to speak. Talk about a biased environment!

Also, we've all heard the Obama administration (both the top guy in our judicial system AND the office of the military's Commander In Chief!) assure(!) The American People KSM and other Twin Towers terrorists will be convicted and will most likely get the death penalty under our civilian judicial system as justification for it being okay to try them in NYC.

I'm sitting here scratching my head over all this, saying to myself "what's wrong with this picture?" There's something about these statements that seems like warped reasoning to me. Consider the following.

• If we want him to be tried in NYC under our civilian system of justice, don't we have to deny him the right to a change of venue? Can anyone doubt that, if requested, a change of venue would HAVE to be granted? If ever there were a case where the jury pool is undeniably biased, wouldn't this qualify as the 'poster child' for when a judge would have to grant a change of venue? What are the chances that there are any potential jurors in NYC who haven't heard about the Twin Towers event and have no particular opinion or bias about it?
• If we deny him the right to a change of venue, doesn't that do the exact opposite of what the supporters of a NYC trial want? How can one say a trial there in a civilian court validates and demonstrates the superiority of our civilian judicial system if we deny KSM ANY rights normal to that system? Doesn't forcing him to be tried there in spite of our normal judicial rights prove our judicial system isn't fair in the absolute sense?
• Isn't it absolutely clear that, if his right to a change of venue is not denied, his lawyer would request a change of venue? Any lawyer in this country seeking justice who considers getting his client as fair a trial as possible to be his primary responsibility (ie, wants to keep his license to practice) must(!) request a change of venue in this case. Wouldn't it be malpractice not to request it?
• If KSM is denied the right to request a change of venue OR his lawyer requests it and it is denied, is there any doubt that would be a good basis for appeal? Is there ANY doubt that the original verdict would absolutely be thrown out on appeal on that basis?
• Is there any doubt a change of venue would be granted? That means, if we give him all the normal rights a defendant MUST have under our judicial system, he won't even be tried in NYC anyway. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of, the whole justification for, putting him on trial there in the first place?
• There's another reason why he now CANNOT get a fair trial in NYC. The White House, various Democratic leaders and even the Attorney General of the United States(!) have tried to assure us that NYC is an acceptable location to try KSM and other Twin Towers terrorists because they're certain those guys WILL be convicted and will probably get the death penalty. Talk about biasing the trial! What lawyer worth his salt wouldn't appeal KSM's guilty verdict on that basis and what judge worth his salt would not grant it? If our civilian judicial system is in fact completely fair, is there any doubt that KSM's verdict would be overturned on the basis of such bias?
• Even if it were now switched to a military tribunal trial we may have just guaranteed the verdicts will be overturned on appeal because the ultimate boss of the military people (the office of the Commander In Chief!) has biased THAT kind of trial too by declaring these guys will be found guilty. It is easy to imagine that these guys will now go free no matter what we do.

So, either we deny him his right to a change of venue which would guarantee the verdict would be appealed on the basis of denial of his right to a fair trial or he'll get a change of venue which makes this whole effort for a NYC trial moot and a complete waste of time. In fact, haven't we now guaranteed that whatever guilty verdict comes about (wherever he goes on trial) will not only be appealed on the basis of prejudice to convict but most certainly will be overturned?

The only option is to try KSM and the other terrorists in a military tribunal. It may be that even that would allow them to go free now that representatives of the Commander In Chief, the top dog in the military chain of command, have said they will be found guilty.

Does any of this make any sense whatsoever to you? I completely don't get it. Either I'm not making sense of it correctly or our Democratic leaders aren't. It seems to me like incompetence and irrationality to an extent that makes no sense whatsoever.